Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 8

message: Ok... so I've got the energy and eagerness to create  or a set of them, or a parameterized template. Do we want "fossil" to show up as "extinct" currently does? Do we want it parmeterized so that we can indicate what epoch/age/etc the fossil record link back to? Should it have the "Status" link? - UtherSRG 08:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Uther - excellent, go ahead! I don't know the workings of the system very well, but if it would need a seperate template for each year or period (, , ; , , , etc) then I think we should go for just  and . For fossil, I'd go for black or very dark grey (the colour that most fossils are!). - MPF 14:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No we wouldn't need separate templates like that - the new 1.3 templates allow parameters. Thus we could write something like  or . i.e. we only need two templates in total. The disadvantage of having parameters is that something has to be put in for the parameter every time the template is used, even if the answer isn't really known in a particular given article. If we include the status link, we should update the status article to also make the distinction between fossils and recently extinct too. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete is correct. Take a look at Template:StatusExtinct to see how I've modified it and then check out the "What links here" for it to see it in use. I've left Template:StatusFossil with the old "Extinct" behavior for now. Its range of input parameters could be more varied - I can think of a few different ways parameters might be used. We may want , , , or a few other possibilities. These variations *would* need different templates, hence the "plain", etc., epithets. - UtherSRG 14:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: implementation of templates

message: While on this, I notice that the colour for Lower Risk on Conservation status is different colour to the template; I originally chose orange to be intermediate between green Secure and brown Vulnerable but someone changed it on the template as the orange was hard to see in one of the taxobox colours - unfortunately the new colour (greeny-blue) isn't too easy to see on plant taxoboxes! (nor is green Secure). Should there be a check-out to make sure all combinations are easily readable, with amendments if necessary? - MPF 14:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: a bit more on status templates

message: :Here's the previous "test pattern". "Darkgrey" is used for "Bacteria" - do we have any fossil-only bacterial species? I'll see about adding a "Lower Risk" entry to the test pattern. - UtherSRG 18:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops - how did I miss seeing your introduction sentence . . . must get my eyes tested! - MPF 20:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Hi Uther, thanks for doing the chart! Very strange, Fossil "darkslategrey" shows up bright red (same colour as Critical) on my computer. Even stranger, 'Extinct in the wild' and 'Extinct' are different on my computer, even though both are "darkslateblue" ('Extinct' being a paler shade of violet). - MPF 23:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, only the name for "Extinct" is "darkslateblue". The table's coloring is "slateblue". But you are right about "Fossil Red". I grabbed the name from a table elsewhere, and I suppose it isn't a standard HTML color name. I've fixed it by using the raw number: #25383c. - UtherSRG 00:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: colors

message: User:Guanaco is in the process of converting various tables from HTML to Wiki, including this project's table. Personally, I prefer the HTML. It's shorter and easier to read and edit. I'm very tempted to revert his changes. Can I get a "Hell yes" or a "Hell no"? - UtherSRG 17:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using Wiki for my taxoboxes all the time. I find it easier and less troublesome than HTML. By the way, HTML is changing into XHTML (version 1.0). It will be a hell of a job converting all those taxoboxes into XHTML, when the time comes. Besides, the conversion from HTML to Wiki markup is very easy : there is an automatic converter on this site : []. Although, when I change someone else's taxoboxes, I'm rather loath converting them to the Wiki markup. I'm afraid that the original author would get confused. But, all in all, I'm pro Wiki markup.  JoJan 18:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine for your usage. I'm asking about this project, and what is standard and all that. As I said, I personally prefer HTML. Like you, I use my preference when making my own articles. Rarely I'll convert a really bad wiki table to HTML. Yes, the convert from HTML to wiki is easy, but the reverse is not true. - UtherSRG 18:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of Wiki markup is explained  here : Using tables. If I remember correctly, originally Wiki markup was preferred to HTML. Now it is given on equal footing. So, that makes it confusing to decide which one to give preference. In other words, there is no standard. But since HTML will be replaced in time by XHTML, I put my all my eggs in the Wiki basket. Lets find out what others think about this. JoJan 18:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are equal, then Guanaco shouldn't have gone and made the converts and I'll unconvert them. - UtherSRG 18:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Wiki tables whenever possible, and even convert occasionally. I personally think the wiki syntax is easier, and less likely to create strange results - a missing </td> normally is fine, but some browsers might have a less optimal html table error fixing. And after the MediaWiki1.3 change some HTML table had strange behaviour, while the wiki table was fine. andy 19:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I can say the exact same thing, reversing wiki and HTML. I've spent far too much time wading therough the seas of "|", "||", "|-", trying to put in an 'align="center"' that I've just replaced a table outright with an HTML one. There are plenty of folks who you can ask to fix a messed up HTML table. - UtherSRG 21:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki vs HTML

message: There's a current survey at Talk:Chimpanzee#Poll. Comments are very welcome. Mackerm 06:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll is now closed, resulting in the articles in question staying as they are. - UtherSRG 13:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chimpanzee naming