Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 6

message: The taxobox "designs" on the "Project" page do not match those presented in the discussions here. I suppose there must be discussion of the design change here somewhere, but the "settled" upon formats are ugly and difficult to implement in HTML. It makes no sdsense to "center" lists of species (or whatever) and not center titles - that is (IMHO) backwards from good HTML and graphical design. Also, a majority of the taxoboxes out there (that I have encountered) are non-conforming to the Project design.  I suggest we provide the examples to the Wikipedians for a vote. - Marshman 18:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suspecting now that your browser is possibly causing you some problems. (Much like it did Mirv awhile back.) The th tag should get rendered as if it were td align="center" with its contents bolded. - UtherSRG 18:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How interesting.  Yes, the th bolds but does not center.  Is that because I have the "wrong" version of IE? Could it be that many others get the taxoboxes set up with left justification instead of centering? I do recall some time ago thinking that the  tag should auto-center, but noting that it (at that point) no longer did - Marshman 02:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Anyone know why my browser (Internet Explorer 6.0) does not center text in th tags? It seems if centering is a part of the standard being established here, it needs to be added into the tag if (from my perspective, although possibly mistakenly) most users' browsers do not in fact center the text? In other words, is what I see what most people see, or is my experience a rare exception with a fix? - Marshman 18:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my experience is consistent with yours. IE 6.0 (at least) does not do the standard thing. However when I pleaded for us to add a "=center" tag to help out IE users (a mere 85% of our user base!) I got all this rubbish about "get a proper browser". This is one of the archives of this page. I would be very pleased if we could use the center tags... its not like it will break other browsers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple of different versions of IE (including multiple 6.0 versions) and the th tags work fine for me. The implication of 85% of our user base has a problem is incorrect. My current version is 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2030422-1633. Perhaps all that's needed is to get service pack 2 (SP2) via Windows Update. - UtherSRG 19:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm up to date on my Windows, but maybe I need to download another version of IE?  Mine is 6.0.2600....blah blah and yours seems to be more recent. I agree with Pete, when you are using a pretty standard, widely used browser, your impression is that it is THE standard. That is why I made a plee here.  I'm adding align="center" to all the th tags I come across because my experience is that it is needed. I suppose the real authority would be the html definition of the tag, not who or how many wikipedians do or do not see centering. If centering is part of the definition, then we can assume at best our browser versions are non-compliant. I will work on updating my IE to see if that helps. And thanks! - Marshman 03:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Lol, I have the exact same version number as you Uther (all 28 characters of it!) and yet I still get the wrong behaviour. Goodness knows why - maybe possibly it is because I have different languages settings (I have en.UK and presumably you have en.US?) but that seems a bit of a stretch. The thing is though we really shouldn't be talking in such detail - it is clear that the there are several people with the issue - why the resistance to a harmless workaround. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

text: HTML definition is that the th tag acts as a td tag with center and bold. Perhaps this *is* a US v UK issue after all, and you Brits should just cope better. *grins* Just kidding. I give up. Go ahead and add the centering as you see fit. Just one more reason to hate MSIE I suppose. - UtherSRG 12:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: taxobox centering

message: I have noticed that we now try to give proper scientific names including the taxonomy authority, e.g. for the Rosy Barb "Barbus conchonius Hamilton-Buchanan 1822", typically with the name and year linked. Is there aleady an agreed link format for these authorities? Now "Hamilton-Buchanan" is a simple case, for there will most probably never be a name clash with something completely unrelated.
However, take Girard for instance: that link goes to a disambig page for places. Not exactly what I'd expect when I see the link as a taxonomy authority... I have therefore started to use the canonical format  as in Girard, which I then make a redirect to the page on the person, in this case, Charles Frédéric Girard. The advantage of this format is that I don't have to worry about inadvertently linking to some place or other unrelated entry, and I don't have to go figure out the full name of the person just to add the link.
Only when the link just added turns up red, I have to go do some research and find out something about the person. (Incidentally, I believe when one adds a taxonomy authority link, one should also do some reasonable effort to write the article behind the link, even if it's just a stub. Just adding lots of red links doesn't help. And in some cases, articles on the person already exist, and one needs just to do the redirect.)
Lupo 07:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mostly right. Using  is a good idea when just the plain Name goes to the wrong place. However, I've had trouble finding just who an author is and prefer to leave the link red for someone to fix who knows how to fix it. Also, it is better to not leave the " (taxonomy)|" trick in the page, once the actual article is know, instead use "Name" instead. - UtherSRG 11:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But I add " (taxonomy)|" precisely to make sure I get a red link and don't link inadvertently to some place name that would show up blue and give no indication whatsoever that actually nobody has yet checked the name give. And yes, tracking down those names is hard work, some are really obscure and cost me easily an hour to assemble enough info for a short stub. And why not leave the pipe trick in? Anyone who clicks on the link will probably not be surprised if he or she ends up on a page saying "Redirected from...". Lupo 12:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I also think it is a good thing to create a redirect from the non-piped name: Thiele, for example. - UtherSRG 12:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as that doesn't conflict again, cf. Hamilton or Girard above! Lupo 12:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have a full name, just use "Hamilton" or "Girard" by itself - it's effectively a note that more disambiguation needs to be added, and people who are good at that sort of thing will fix it up later. If we do that repeatedly, eventually Hamilton etc will link to a list of Hamiltons that includes voila! the scientist you were looking for. Linking to "Hamilton (taxonomy)" means that no one will notice the needed disambiguation. Stan 12:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, take a look at Red Spider Mite. Do you find the Koch link helpful? Does it tell you in any way that in fact none of the Kochs listed is the one that should be linked? Lupo 12:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of us who like tinkering with disambiguation, it's totally intriguing - either we're missing a worthy, or one of those guys had an unusual hobby, and finding out which is a good use of a half-hour. :-) Links to "msg:disambig" pages are big red flags to the people who pay attention to that sort of thing. Stan 13:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to insist, but... this is not only a disambiguation problem. Take the Bush Dog, for instance. If my " (taxonomy)|" proposal had been used, we wouldn't link to a Swedish city called Lund there: we'd have a nice red link telling everybody "hey, here's an article that needs to be written: Wikipedia doesn't know who this Lund is". And there's no disambiguation involved at all! Lupo 13:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That just means we need a disambiguator at Lund, which shouldn't be surprising because it's a relatively common surname - almost every name that matches a surname needs a disambiguator sooner or later. Doing the " (taxonomy)" thing doesn't hurt, I just don't think it's that critical, and it's not really what the disambig specialists prefer. On the other hand, more redirs is always better! :-) Stan 14:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: There also another solution : there is a "List of biologists" in Wikipedia. If everyone, interested in taxonomy, would add an author (from an existing entry) to this list, as I do, things could be much easier. Of course, you can write a biography of an author yourself (as I did for C. S. Rafinesque). Discussions about disambiguation would become almost pointless. In this list, one can, for instance, also easily see the difference between Louis Agassiz and Alexander Agassiz. Personally, I have printed out this list and I find it very handy in attributing links to the authors. JoJan 08:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy authority links

message: Please take care when using the ITIS database as a source for taxonomy authorities. ITIS has spelling errors, for instance, they have "Hamilton-buchanon" [sic] instead of "Hamilton-Buchanan", or "Mcclelland, 1893" instead of "McClelland, 1839"! A quick Google search helps a long way in catching such errors in ITIS! Lupo 08:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. ITIS is authoritative in many ways. But when it comes to the class Gastropoda, ITIS clearly has missed the boat and still declares the older taxonomy as valid. Indeed, one must take care !  JoJan 20:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ITIS as a taxonomic resource

message: FYI, I'm gradually, as I edit botanical articles, adding citations, linking them, and adding short bio articles on the botanists cited if they don't already exist.  Some are really obscure, too, let me tell you, like Otto von Muenchhausen. jaknouse 18:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work too, I might add. Some of that info is really hard to come by, online or off. Stan 22:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Yo. Could/should someone update the organism example on Wikipedia:Infobox--it looks like it might be a bit out of date? jengod 21:06, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Yo yourself. *grins* Thanks for the heads up. I've taken care of it. Cheers! - UtherSRG 21:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Infobox]]

message: I moved all sections that hadn't been touched since the end of April to a new archive 5. Note that this page is still at 70k but the debate is too live to do anything about it now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Some discussion has been started regarding the naming convention for marsupials (Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria?).  I do not know much about the subject but Ingoolemo seems to have looked into it and has started up a vote, which I have moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria.  Feel free to join in if you have anything to say on the subject. - PlatinumX 07:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria