Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal

message: Would article importance be included in the new template? I can see this generating problems - For example, chitin might be of low importance to TOL generally, but of high importance to the insect WikiProject. Debivort 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the mockups that Circeus created, you can see that there are multiple parameters for importance (i.e. "importance=Low" for TOL and then "plants-importance=Mid" and perhaps "carnivorous-plants-importance=High"). It's something we use now in WP:BANKSIA and WP:CPS, which are subprojects of WP:PLANTS. We've been using such a system for a few months now and Circeus incorporated it into this template as well. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Importance, and the portals, are behind the "drop box", but they are there. Circeus 13:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article importance 

message: I think this solution while becoming standard across many projects is a worthy ideal. I wonder whether the nesting is in the wrong direction,
example say WP:Banksia
Instead to the main WP tag being TOL
The main tag should be WP Banksia with a reverse tree of Plants, then TOL. That indicates that WP:Banksia is the subjects focus project and that plants, and TOL are broader scope projects that support the subject area. Gnangarra 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, I think, is a better way to go about it. Dinoguy2 06:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! That way, if a user is really excited about Banksia, they know to go first to WP:BANKSIA, and that the other projects are there for support. Sheep81 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could build a supertemplate like this that would prioritize projects. A parameter would tell it to use WP:BANKSIA's template design/look, so that the template would look like the BANKSIA template, but would still be the supertemplate. Something like  and so on. That way it would still be incorporated in the supertemplate, but maintain the feel of the individual projects and avoid the problem stated above about community. It is able to be done that way. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very promising! I think we'd like to see a mockup though. Most of us are not template gurus, sadly. Sheep81 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I very much like this idea, especially the thought of TOL being mentioned in each template, but the template being unique for each project. If it's feasible using one super template to save on work, then so much better! Mehmet Karatay 07:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: instead of super templates getting over complex, I would have thought that the  could just be modified to included the Plants, TOL tag lines and populate the plants. tol categories. This would also alleviate the need for a mass template replacement and allow for expansion into other non-tol projects like WP Australia.. Gnangarra 07:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True,  already includes assessment information for WP:PLANTS, as does , but the point of this endeavor, I think, is to compile all TOL projects into one template so that updates, if ever needed, can be done across the board. That may have some advantages and disadvantages. Another important aspect of it is that not all subproject articles will always be part of its parent projects. Perhaps it's more straightforward in WP:BANKSIA, but in WP:CPS, we have at least one article within the scope that is not a plant (Pameridea), so the super template could include parameters that would indicate that WP:CPS supports that article, though the ultimate project would be WP:ARTH. I know WP:BANKSIA has Dryandra Moth within its project's scope, but that is also not a plant. That's where the super template would be useful. --Rkitko (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, Pameridea is a prime example of inconsistent assessment. For a far more egregious one, see Talk:Dryococelus australis. Circeus 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I think that is a LOT better. It shows where you can find the editors most likely to work on an article, and where you can go for supplementary support. Basically it is just an expanded WP: Carnivorous Plants banner. And all we would have to type would be the bit in the nowiki box once the template is made, right? Sheep81 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, unless you wanted to add additional parameters, such as the ones that WP:PLANTS uses, like "attention=yes", "needs-photo=yes", and "needs-taxobox=yes" (corresponding to :Category:Plant articles needing attention, :Category:Plant articles needing photos, and :Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes, respectively. These parameters could be expanded/collapsed to fit the super template so that a carnivorous plant article that needs a taxobox would be put in only the non-existent (as of now) :Category:Carnivorous plant articles needing taxoboxes, which would be a subcat of :Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes so that we avoid overcategorization.) --Rkitko (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if 

message: Perhaps, for, say... Pinguicula moranensis.
 
60px      	Pinguicula moranensis is within the scope of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page.
FA        	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
          	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants.
          	This article is supported by WikiProject Tree of Life.
More information about this
article...
{|	
More information about this
article...
{|
          	
Assessment	Assessment
Mid       	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale by WikiProject Carnivorous plants.
Low       	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale by WikiProject Plants.
Low       	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale by WikiProject Tree of Life.
;Categories involved:
*:Category:FA-Class carnivorous plant articles
*:Category:FA-Class plant articles
*:Category:FA-Class taxonomic articles
*:Category:Mid-importance carnivorous plant articles
*:Category:Low-importance plant articles
*:Category:Low-importance taxonomic articles
How about that? I was thinking, WP:BANKSIA may not be the best example for a framework, since it's at such a unique intersection of the TOL WikiProject hierarchy as well as the Australian WikiProjects. It's going to need two templates on the talk pages anyway for the Australian projects. But let's not forget it when we're discussing here. The above example for carnivorous plants works well. And indeed if the example grew in one of those countries that have a project "biota" parameter, that could be included as well. Is this kind of what you were thinking of? --Rkitko (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think that is a LOT better. It shows where you can find the editors most likely to work on an article, and where you can go for supplementary support. Basically it is just an expanded WP: Carnivorous Plants banner. And all we would have to type would be the bit in the nowiki box once the template is made, right? Sheep81 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, unless you wanted to add additional parameters, such as the ones that WP:PLANTS uses, like "attention=yes", "needs-photo=yes", and "needs-taxobox=yes" (corresponding to :Category:Plant articles needing attention, :Category:Plant articles needing photos, and :Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes, respectively. These parameters could be expanded/collapsed to fit the super template so that a carnivorous plant article that needs a taxobox would be put in only the non-existent (as of now) :Category:Carnivorous plant articles needing taxoboxes, which would be a subcat of :Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes so that we avoid overcategorization.) --Rkitko (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example mockup

message: I mentioned this to Circeus, but I now think I should have mentioned it here too. I've already had this discussion on unifying project banners with respect to a different WikiProject, and have come to quite strongly oppose the idea of top-down unification, for the following reasons:
#The main purpose of the (visible part of the) banner is to advertise the project. The banner should therefore be as specific as possible, because people who visit an article like Stylidium turbinatum are far more likely to respond to an advertisement for WP:CPLANTS than WP:TOL.
#Unified templates quickly become a virtually unreadable mess of complicated template esoterica. They offend my instinct for modularity. A case in point:  is currently 82 kilobytes long!
#The argument that having a single banner for a entire subproject tree reduces banner clutter is incorrect. When an article belongs to multiple subprojects of a single parent project, having a single banner does reduce clutter. But when a subproject belongs to multiple parent projects, having a single banner increases banner clutter. e.g. in this case we would have to replace every WP:BANKSIA template with a WP:TOL header and a WP:AUS header. With this argument set aside, I'm not aware of any cogent argument in favour of a top-down banner system. 
A bottom-up system seems to have none of these disadvantages. Hesperian 11:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the WP:AUS "banner" I'd replace with the australian biota element. Australia is really the exception, not the rule. Although I still think some sets should be incorporated (i.e. mammals and subprojects, Arthropods and subprojects...), I'm having second thoughts, and will try not to argue in one direction or the other too much. Which won't be difficult since I will be away until at least Saturday *sigh*Circeus 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hesperian here, again, for the resons they stated. On a side note, I didn't know what these funny looking plants outside my apartment door were called until reading all these examples of Banksia were brouht up, so never let it be said debates about Wikipedia esoterica are not educational ;) Dinoguy2 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bottom up