Template talk:Ocean habitat topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

what is the difference between this template and biome template?[edit]

In my opinion, this template could be merged in the [[template: biome]]. shangkuanlc (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This template is about ocean habitats. The biome template is attempting too much, and should be confined to terrestrial biomes. Merging the two would be unwieldy. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. I'm not an oceanologist, I feel confused when the term "aquatic" arise in both sides of templates(aquatic biomes/ecosystems). Would you give me a hint when I shall use this template? Especially the habitats between freshwater and marine (i.e. Littoral/intertidal zone) Thank you.shangkuanlc (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Field removal[edit]

Removed the following odd links from bottom of template:

as I don't see the need/ relevancy except maybe the Aquatic ecosystem link. Why did Land habitats link to tundra and Aquatic layers link to Pelagic zone? Lake stratification and Wild fisheries links not needed in Ocean habitats. Vsmith (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the intention of those links is to point to related navigation templates, in an attempt to try and pull some of these articles together and provide better topic connectivity. Over several years I've written a number of related templates covering topics related to marine biology, as well as coastal geography and physical oceanography. There is quite a balancing act trying to optimise the way the templates can connect topic areas without becoming too overbearing. This is the first time any other editor has shown any critical interest, so your input and involvement is very welcome. I don't imagine, for one moment, that the lack of interest by editors is because I've done such a splendid job that there is no room for, even radical improvement.
  • Aquatic layers links to pelagic zone since it is the lead article in the {{aquatic layer topics}} template. Ideally it should link to an article called aquatic layers, but that article doesn't currently exist. Aquatic layers, and pelagic layers in particular, constitute major habitats, as spelt out for fish in the article pelagic fish.
  • Lake stratification goes to an article which hosts a template which likewise includes articles delineating habitats, though it is true that the material relating to habitats hasn't yet been included in those articles.
  • Aquatic ecosystems has a template, this time at the bottom of the article, which contains a number of articles related to species habitats such as coastal fish, demersal fish etc.
  • Wild fisheries discusses other types of habitats, defined by temperature zones or supported by upwellings etc., and again has a bottom template point to further topics related to marine habitats.
  • Land habitats is a counterpoint to Ocean habitats, so it goes to the lead article on the {{terrestial biomes}} template. It would be more logical if it went to an article called land habitat or terrestial biome which also hosted the template, but no such article currently exists.
Anyway, as you point out, the way some of these links are currently connecting can be confusing. Originally these particular links were an attempt to reduce clutter but retain connectivity, and all the templates the links pointed to were side templates at the top of articles, where they were obvious. However, over time I've switched more to bottom templates, since side templates have other problems, such as, as you have noticed, issues with lead images. I redeveloped some of the templates used here as bottom templates, which has compounded the lack of transparency. Template creep is already becoming a problem with some of these articles, and trying to maximise navigation utility with a minimum of clutter, particularly in the absence of interested collaborators, is a task that gets beyond me at times :) --Epipelagic (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of "side templates" as they tend to interfere with images (as noted) and infoboxes. I think "bottom templates" are much preferred. Anyway, if used they should be as compact and relevant as possible ... which is why I removed the grey boxes at the end. I've also edited Template:Lake stratification topics to avoid line wrap and reduce the number of "bottom links" of little relevancy. Vsmith (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)