Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 5

message: Is there any way to fix the gap between Conservatio Status and Fossil Range? When both arguments are used is creates about two lines worth of space between them (see Giraffatitan).Dinoguy2 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use both. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage, under Fossil Range, it states, For groups that still exist or only went extinct recently, the second period should be given as "Recent", and the current status should be indicated using the status argument. To me, this suggess the status and fossil_range arguments should be functional when both are used. If I'm wrong, maybe this section should be re-written.Dinoguy2 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the logic from using 'div' tags to 'span' tags to remove the blank space between the two sections. --CBDunkerson 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, thanks!Dinoguy2 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status + Range Problems 

message: I did some major rewrites of the template logic today... which should not have any impact on the actual display of the template (other than the separate spacing issue above). The goal was to remove the out-dated , , and  templates with #if:. While I created those templates for use here in the first place (and think they did alright as an interim solution) the newer built-in #if: functionality is less vulnerable to vandalism, faster, and in other ways a general improvement I believe. I also converted the way the existing #if: calls were working from a mix of HTML tables and wiki tables to using wiki table markup throughout for consistency. Note that the  template called in numerous places just evaluates to a '|' character... the pipe needs to be hidden inside  this way when used inside a #if: conditional to differentiate between |s separating #if: parameters and those which are table markup.
Please let me know if you encounter any problems. I tested this on about twenty pages, but there could still be a few glitches in the conversion which will only show up in specific circumstances. --CBDunkerson 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion 

message: The link in the taxobox points to Wikipedia:Conservation status.  This violates WP:SELF and should be changed to a relevant content page. SchmuckyTheCat 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, apparently this was changed, but the result is bad. Compare Conservation status, which is vague and does not explain what the codes used in this taxobox mean, with Wikipedia:Conservation status, which gives precise meanings to the codes. I don't think this violates WP:SELF any more than the "How to read a taxobox" link does. Stevage 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I was confused when I clicked on the link and got that short article. I wanted to compare the status with others on the list. I think it should be changed back, or linked to an article space article that specifically deals with this status rating scheme. -- cmh 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously the link sometimes went to one and sometimes to the other in an inconsistant manner. Now that the conservation status field uses IUCN classifications it should be changed to something more appropriate. I've started several articles dealing with particular red list categories (see links on the sidebar of Conservation status) so perhaps the words after "conservation status" can be linked instead. —Pengo 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation status

message: I recently changed the color of the box's border from black to #aaa, which is standard across Wikipedia. However, I was quickly reverted by UtherSRG. Is it ok to use the standard #aaa color for the box's border or should we continue to use a black border, and if that's the case, why? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should continue to use black because it looks better. --Yath 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it looks better. In any case it is not standard throughout Wikipedia to use boxes with a black border, so it looks inconsistent and therefore amateurish. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Box border

message: That is "| unranked_familia =" for example, and an oxymoron if you ask me.
This particular template got to be a pain when editing Chiniquodontoidea as it allows for no flexibility in the positioning of unranked clades which sometimes are rather abundant as is the case. As I'd rather like to get the superfamily Probainognathia into that box and as I think simplicity is in order why not bring back unranked as exemplified below and allow it to fit everywhere among the ranked hierarchies.
* | unranked = {taxon}
* | unranked_authority = {author, date}
I agree I'm no template luminary, though I think this saves quite a few lines of code even if one has to create a subsidiary template and would make life somewhat more easy on us paleo-types Dracontes 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template allows one unranked taxa above each (major?) ranked taxa. Each is needed because it is not simpler, given the restrictions of wikicode, to have a "floating" entry, that is, an entry that can appear in different places depending on other entries. Also, there is only one given because any more would be too much information for the taxobox to adequately describe. The taxobox should be a breif highlight, if you want to shove more information in it, you probably really need to split it into multiple articles and/or describe it in the text or with another diagram. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution I've used a few times is to use only ranked taxa in the txbx (or really well-known unranked taxa, but only one or two at most), and then have a phylogeny section in the text with an ASCII-style cladogram. The taxobox, in my experience, is best used for just classification, not phylogeny, so unranked taxa should only be used to designate major groups (like Oviraptorosauria).Dinoguy2 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unranked rank

message: Too complicated to edit, but all the links to Conservation status (which is totally uninformative) should instead go to Wikipedia:Conservation status, which explains what the codes mean. Can someone change it? Stevage 08:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: The Synonyms section of the taxobox is great, as it allows you to list all of the older scientific names for a species. However, even though Wikipedia seems to think common names are more important than scientific names, there is no satisfying or standard way to list all of the common names that are often associated with a single species. I would like to suggest adding such a section to the taxobox, below Synonyms.--Jwinius 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing common names

message: The text alignment of synonyms section was centered, which looked like crap when you had a long list of synonyms of different length. They should be left-aligned with a little margin as the species or other subdivisions are. However, the syntax is beyond me (I tried, but to no avail). Can somebody please change the alignment to left-with-a-little-margin as in the species etc. listing (see Palaelodus for example)? Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmh, thanks aplenty! It looks sweet now! Dysmorodrepanis 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonyms

message: Sometimes the "species" line will break like this: . Can the template be edited to prevent that? --Yath 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Gdr 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It looks better now. --Yath 14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventing some line breaks 

message: Wouldn't it be nice to make the various fields into links? E.g.:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.13.139.28 (talk • contribs) .
:Nope. That's what the single link to Scientific Classification is for. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I've just put a range map in the Emu article and the synonym field is showing up beneath the map rather than under the other taxonomic info. Is there a way to fix this? --Peta 12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonyms and range maps

message: The line which goes under the section headings (like the one just above this), seem to be going straight through the taxobox. This hasn't happened before, and I am wondering if it is just my computer, or if anyone else can see it. E.g. Rocket Frog. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing it, too. I'm running Firefox. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So am I. --liquidGhoul 13:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing it in Opera, so it isn't just you nor just Firefox. -Dawson 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to bring that up yesterday, but Wiki were updating the database so I thought that it must of been something to do with that. -- Froggydarb croak 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the line in both IE and netscape.--Tnarg12345 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that the line isn't visible anymore. Did anyone change anything?--Tnarg12345 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like its back again.--Tnarg12345 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay, I edited Rocket Frog, and the line dissapeared. Looks as though the problem is solved! --liquidGhoul 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Line thru' taxobox

message: To allow personalization of how this thing looks, it'd be nice to have it defined by means of a class or id instead of hard-coded CSS rules. That way, I (and other people that don't like the box style) can customize it. Any chance? --Thunderhead 13:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? At least you could give it an id so I can hide it. --Thunderhead 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Thunderhead. This is probably the only box in wide use that only relies on inline style. Can anybody come up with a good reason why? chochem 15:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? No. 90% of boxes rely to some point on inline css, even when it would arguably makes it so easier to have a class (e.g. :category:band templates). Arguably, one could add class="infobox," but that would only remove a minimal amount of styling. And a dedicated class/id would be ridiculous, in my opinion.Circeus 15:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said "only relies on inline style". Well, to me it's just a matter of proper classification. It is an infobox (i.e. it is a rundown of essential information placed to the right at the start of the article), so label it as such. As for appearance, a) monobook is not the only style being used and b) as Thunderhead points out it allows for customization. chochem 09:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All such features should have an ID (assuming that they occur one on a page; otherwise a class) - that's semantically correct HTML mark-up. Andy Mabbett 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID or class ? 

message: The template needs to be modified so that range maps are centered, just as the main image is when it's narrower than the taxobox. See Puma for a currently non-centered range map. --Yath 11:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range map needs centering 

message: I've applied the template doc page patten. Everyone can edit the documentation, which is transcluded from Template:Taxobox/doc (even though the template is fully protected). Note that vandalism on the doc page doesn't propagate to articles.Please add new interwikis to Template:Taxobox/doc. --Ligulem 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doc page pattern