Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Automatic taxobox

Just an announcement that Template:Automatic taxobox now seems to be able to support a broad sample of taxonomic oddities, and its code should have stabilized. The template should now be suitable for widespread use; comments on rolling this out are welcome at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Ready_to_release.3F. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking of subdivision_ranks

Should the value of |subdivision_ranks= ever be wikilinked? I note that it isn't in the documentatioin, but is in many articles. It seems inconsistent to wikilink this, but not the other ranks in the taxobox (regnum, phylum, classis etc). The link, in my eyes, does not add any value; the taxobox makes it clear what taxonomic level is in question, and if someone doesn't understand what a species is (for example) then they aren't going to understand the taxobox at all — the link to Scientific classification already provided will be much more useful to them. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always linked it, though you raise an interesting point. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 05:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've always linked to it, too. I think it's especially important with lesser-known subdivisions, like section (botany) or series (botany). I agree that it's inconsistent with the non-linked ranks in the classification section, but I think it's more important than the ranks at or above the article's taxon (which will likely be explained in the article text, e.g. "Foobar is an infraorder...") because it's giving the context for the subdivisions of the article's taxon. I suppose I'd be ok with it either way, but it appears to be the common practice and I don't see a pressing need to change that. Rkitko (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dual status systems: CITES & IUCN

Can we allow for both the IUCN and CITES conservation status to be used in a taxobox? At present, it appears that you may use only one or the other. For many species, both classifications are meaningful and should be summarized. For instance, the five species of slow loris are all CITES Appendix I, but four are classified by the IUCN as VU and one is EN. Their IUCN Red List status aside, their CITES status is a recent change (2007) and was seen as a very important factor for their conservation. (I'm writing an entire article about the topic and hope to publish soon.)

Also I'm not sure if "Threatened with extinction" is needed under "Appendix I" because it's stated on the CITES article that the status points to. Not only that, but Appendix I means much more than just that the species is threatened. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Including a second conservation status is probably doable. I'll have a quick look and see if it's something that can be done quickly. If not, it may have to wait as long as summer before I can get around to it. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 15:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For a quick fix, I'd think a simple conditional statement should work to prevent unlikely doubles. For example, you could have an "CITES" optional parameter that displays based on "AppI" or "AppII" values, but also won't display if the "status" parameter is already set to CITES. The "Threatened with extinction" line will definitely not be needed in this case for Appendix I because it will likely be paired with an IUCN rating. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Parameters |status2=, |status2_system=, and |status2_ref= are now supported, but I've not implemented your suggested error checking as I don't think it is really necessary. As for the APP I needing "threatened" following it, that's a fairly simple edit-- but it might be a controversial one. Probably an RfC would be appropriate. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Proposed change: Eliminate "Threatened with extinction" from the Appendix I CITES conservation status in taxoboxes.

Affected pages: {{Taxobox/species}}

Current code segment:

| CITES_A1 = '''[[CITES]] Appendix I'''<br />[[Threatened species|Threatened with extinction]]

Proposed change:

| CITES_A1 = [[CITES]] Appendix I


| CITES_A1 = '''[[CITES]] Appendix I'''

or related change. Please discuss.


  1. Sounds good to me, although I have no experience with CITES. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support: see comments below. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree with the rational provided. Though I only ever use IUCN. ZooPro 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)




  • As stated above in the post that started it all, CITES Appendix I means much more than just that the species is threatened. Not only that, but the CITES article (to which the status links) already mentions the "threatened species" information. Anyway, not all species covered under CITES Appendix I are threatened, or even vulnerable. All lemurs are listed, but several species of mouse lemur are classified by the IUCN as "Least concern". Yes, they are still threatened by habitat loss and many things, and I'm very thankful for the protection, but the link seems like an insufficient summary, is inaccurate, and in some cases, redundant (when IUCN status is already set as threatened or endangered). If anything, maybe we could make an alternative parameter to include the text, such as "CITES_A1_Threatened". – VisionHolder « talk » 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    In case anyone needed it, there is now an example of the inconsistency at Ring-tailed Lemur. The species is listed by the IUCN is "Near Threatened", but the CITES status says it's "Threatened with extinction". – VisionHolder « talk » 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

problem with DD as status

there seems to be an error when trying to label a species's status as "data deficient" pls refer to Burton's Gerbil for an example.

I planted an error in {{Taxobox/core}} a little while ago; since then it's been pointed out and I've resolved it. Does the gerbil article still have the problem, or was it linked to that bug? Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
all better :) --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Great! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

coding error

To my uneducated eye, the taxobox template seems to be causing an error at the top of several articles like Alseuosmiaceae. It says "{{if:|}}" at the top of these pages. Is that something someone here knows how to fix?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the timely error report. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Parameter "status_ref" doesn't work for CITES

For some reason "status_ref" (or "status2_ref") doesn't appear when using the CITES status system. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

[1] Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 02:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Someday when you have more time, I think we need to overhaul this conservation status stuff. Let me know when you get to that point. But otherwise, thanks for the help so far. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. And yup, I'm busy with college at the moment. Hopefully once I graduate I'll have more time for more projects like these. Right now I'm just hanging around here for quick fixes and emergency ops; these help keep the skills fresh. I am curious as to what sort of overhaul you've got in mind. Face-wink.svg Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The changes wouldn't be too severe. What I was thinking was possibly adding a few extra tidbits for display with IUCN status (assessment year & trend) and CITES status (assessment year). Of course, adding extra parameters makes them different from the alternative status systems. They should probably be set up as stand-alone, optional parameters, leaving a third "status_alt" for the others. My reasoning is that the IUCN status is probably the most widely used, while CITES use should hopefully pick up now that it doesn't have to fight for space with the IUCN status system. In fact, I hope to make time to start adding CITES information to many mammalian taxoboxes sometime after the RfC passes. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove Taxobox div-tags to allow text-wrapping

28-Jan-2011: The taxonomy infobox, Template:Taxobox, needs to be corrected to omit the new top/bottom "<div>" tags, added at the end of November last year, during the massive change to use {Taxobox/core} inside. Those div-tags are preventing text from wrapping alongside the box, when images are stacked below the taxobox. The troublesome div-tags were added 29 November 2010, during a series of edit-revert cycles, in this edit: Taxo-edit-adding-div. So many things changed when using {Taxobox/core}, I don't think people realized the div-tags would block the text-wrapping in current articles (such as "Elephant"). IMPACT: Correcting a 2-month issue. This is a fix to restore the prior text-formatting of all articles with images stacked below {Taxobox}. The test below shows the style of text-gap which will be fixed.

TEST FOR <DIV> TAGS: This text is above the Taxobox.

Taxobox being used here.
Temporal range: Pliocene–Recent
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
African elephant skeleton

After the "<div>" tags are removed from {Taxobox}, then this text here will be displayed alongside the elephant's Taxobox, rather than pushed below to align only with the elephant-skeleton photo. Infoboxes should not be surrounded by <div> tags, so the typesetting around images can be automatic, to allow wrapping text from below any images stacked under an infobox, and not have a text-gap to the left-side of an infobox.

Text-gaps, such as caused by the div-tags, are very common on Wikipedia (due to new users stacking images which block text-wrapping). Hence, this 2-month problem of text-gaps was something users often see in many, many other articles, as similar to typical new images which should be staggered (left-or-right) to avoid large text-gaps on wide windows. With all the other changes being made for {Taxobox/core}, it was easy to overlook this issue among all the others being handled. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its a browser issue because on mine, your text is alongside the taxobox, not the image. Please clarify. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The div tag was added so that white space didn't appear above the taxobox. Please introduce an alternative solution to this before removing the "div"s. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm failing to see the issue as well. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Error in displaying 'unranked_divisio'

According to the documentation, 'unranked_X' is always displayed above 'X'. This does not appear to be true for 'unranked_divisio' which displays below 'divisio' in tests I've done. Can this be corrected please? (There's a temporary example at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox#Work_for_polysporangiophytes.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd fix it, except that I have no idea how many articles are using both |divisio= and |unranked_divisio= parameters and would therefore need corrected. Correcting the documentation will be less messy. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm doing it. I've added a cleanup category at Category:Articles employing both divisio and unranked_divisio. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Annnnnd I'm having technical difficulties getting that category to work properly. It's currently categorizing every single taxobox on Wikipedia as having both parameters, which is clearly not true. If anyone wants to take a look at it and see what's going on, be my guest. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware that was the appropriate syntax; thanks! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

All articles featuring both parameters have now been updated appropriately. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

General use of 'unranked_'

It would be useful if the treatment of 'unranked_X' were generalized, so that every rank 'X' automatically gets an 'unranked_X' by default. (If it can be coded, this would also be simpler.) At present it's a bit random as to which ranks can be "hidden" by the use of 'unranked_' (e.g. I wanted to use 'unranked_superdivisio', but it doesn't exist). (The context is that for the Silurian/Devonian early plants which I'm working on at present, the only classification consistent with recent research is a cladistic one; ranks do exist for some levels, but really I'd prefer, while things are fluid, to display clade names as unranked, which makes it easier to change in future.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm on it now. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 20:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
See the following category set for all pages needing revised as a result of this. I've included instructions on each category page for how to resolve the error: Category:Taxoboxes which can be fixed by being automated. There are several hundred thousand instances in at least one of these categories, so this will take awhile to correct. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we've got a bot operator willing to do this for us. Once the |unranked_familia= on the <26K flagged pages gets swapped to |unranked_superfamilia=, I'll make the last modification necessary to have the uniformity in "unranked" usage. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Permanent protection of this template for administrator only editing?

Is there a specific reason that this template is permanently protected for administrator only editing? Maybe someone can link to the protection discussion and/or the policy that allows only administrators to edit this template. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the guideline for editing "high risk" templates:[2]

Following Wikipedia:Protection policy, page protection may be permanently applied to all templates and template redirects that have been identified by the community as being of high risk to Wikipedia. If fully protected, so that they can only be edited by administrators, these templates should be changed only after consensus for the change has been established on the template's talk page.

I don't consider a single request for something to be the consensus for making a dozen edits to a high risk template. Maybe this policy doesn't apply to this administrators-only edit protection on this template, but rather some other policy applies? --Kleopatra (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I"m not sure I'm following you...is there a recent modification to this template that you are unhappy with? Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 04:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe I said I am "unhappy." Can you quote me and provide a link?
I did ask, however, why this template is permanently administrator-only protected. I cannot find any policy that says the red lock means that administrators are allowed to do all edits and no consensus is necessary. Please provide a link to the policy that shows that the red lock means a page is protected for administrator-only editing. The only policy I can find says that consensus is required, and I don't see any consensus here for dozens of the last exits. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the simple explanation is that these templates are transcluded in thousands of pages and any vandalism like a "hello mom" message in the template will cause it to show up on thousands of pages. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Therefore only administrators can edit, and administrators, since they can edit, dictate the templates on wikipedia? I don't see that anywhere, that administrative powers makes the editor also the writer of protected templates. What I see, instead, is a policy that says that administrators are the ones who can and do make the edits to the templates when consensus has been reached. Two different things: administrators can make whatever edits they want whenever they please versus administrators can make the edits when consensus has been reached. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah ! Ok, that was not clear in your query. Yes, perhaps the usual process of identifying the change and demonstrating its effect in the sandbox version (as in some other templates) is a reasonable thing to ask for in the case of major changes. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Any changes. If there's an error it can be corrected. But, changes in edit-protected articles and templates require community consensus. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:REDLOCK has some information on this. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And this does not give you the right to make any changes you see fit in a permanently protected article just because you are an administrator. Please read the entire policy and follow it by gaining community consensus for every edit to this template. In other words, I request that you and all other administrators start following policy and stop editing this template without consensus. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Mark me if I'm mistaken, but the recent changes have all either been problem-solving edits (which, unless the solution has adverse side effects, I see as an obligation to fix as soon as possible) or RfAs (with the exception of the second conservation status parameter-- I did jump the gun on that). Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 04:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You made a dozen changes in the past few days. How about you link each of those dozen changes to the specific consensus for it, then I'll tell you which ones I like and don't like, which ones I or any members of the community had time to comment upon, whether I agree the consensus was reached, etc. Omitting the edit you say you made without consensus, of course. Or do policies only apply to the rank and file editors, with separate policies for administrators? --Kleopatra (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Whow, the template looks exactly as before, only we have now more options to add taxa of different kinds. I don't see any problem with that.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for making changes that do nothing without the community consensus. If it's the same as before, then administrators should not have been making a dozen edits to it. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Admins don't have any right to avoid policy; I'll put a list of links together for you as you've requested; this might take several minutes to track all of it down. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 05:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. And, for the future, consensus for changing a template should be reached on the template talk page; then, when editors follow the template and its changes they can see exactly what was changed and why and when. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As it needs consensus, I agree with the edits bob has made. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so it wasn't given? In that case, I would like all the edits reverted until consensus is reached per policy for editing fully protected articles templates. Consensus is required before the edits, not retroactively. Please provide a list of edits for discussion. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk)
So, you really object to the changes made beyond whether or not procedure has been followed? If not, your request is nothing more than an example of WP:POINT, especially considering that the changes made are not affecting how the template looks like but add non-controversial functionality under the hood. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kim here. I've watched this template and {{Automatic taxobox}}. I have not seen any reason for concern. I trust Bob, Martin, and the other administrators working to improve this template. I have seen no obvious cases of improper edits without consensus. Rkitko (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Substantive discussion of consensus edits

As per request, here's a list of all template changes I've made myself over the past month:

{{Anglicise rank}}

  • DEBUG: Support ichnoordo per undocumented bug

{{Automatic taxobox}}

Consensus for fully protected templates belongs on the template talk page, not on user talk pages. What purpose does the underscore serve? Did the edit standardize underscores for all or change these few to non-underscored? --Kleopatra (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Up to the end of 2010, all parameters on the client end feature underscores. Recently, a few parameters were introduced with whitespaces, and most parameters were updated so they could be typed with whitespaces instead of with underscores. The changes I made here were to ensure that all, not just half, of these parameters had compatibility in both directions. This prevented you and me from having to learn to type your parameters with whitespaces. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Will this further reduce the ability for automatically pulling information from the taxoboxes? Was this considered in the consensus discussion? --Kleopatra (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The amount of processor utilization it requires to check for an additional parameter is extremely trivial compared to the rest of the template. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about "processor utilication," I'm interested in making sure the automatic taxoboxes can be easily scoured for information, a problem with existing ones. Underscores may work, where white space won't. Has this been considered? The ability to automatically gather information from the taxoboxes in the style of coding? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me...not sure what your question is here. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 05:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see clear consensus for this edit. An unaddressed comment about it remains. I would like this addressed in the discussion. I agree that this is just too much, and, it appears to make the code unwieldy. This needs to be lean and robust, not clunky, and adding extra parameters like this makes it a clunker, open to serious issues every time someone tries to edit. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Martin, Erik, and I have been trying to accommodate for all the strangest quirks of taxonomy, and this one was important enough it warranted further development of the brand new template, which is still being revised and reworked, just at a more invisible level. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that by accommodating all the strangest quirks you are making this a programming, editing, and automating nightmare. While the articles may be hopeless, the templates may be the place for gathering information automatically. By adding all of these quirks, you might again make this more difficult, and I believe this chunky way of programming is like creating some of the worst of the FAs: you accommodate every criticism and wind up with a piece of chunk. In the case of automatic taxoboxes you might be creating Microsoft Windows with coding this way. I asked a couple of programmers to comment. The one who did was only partially responded to. This is turning into a clunker of a program with holes everywhere. Accommodating all of the quirks is creating more patches to code that is already a patchwork mess. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please explain to me how making available the option to enter authorities for the lowest four taxa makes this clunkier; I'm not convinced it does anything besides make manipulating it smoother. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
How is it coded? Hard coded per rank/distance? Or some other way? You and Smith make so many frequent changes all of the time to the templates, there is no way to follow and know what you are doing. Certainly, it is the privilege of administrators to edit fully protected pages howsoever and howsoever often they see fit for whatever reason. Now that you've been doing that for ages, I would like you (collective) to stop doing it and start acting as if the protection does not make the templates your private playgrounds: in other words start following wikipedia policy (and not retroactively gathering support for your not following it). So, back to the issue with this chunky programming. How is it coded? Can you link to the direct edit that added this and show me the lines of associated code in the automatic taxobox and its associated templates? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The great-great grandparent is calculated in relative ancestry to the taxon in question. Here are the edits: Template:Taxobox/taxonomy Template:Taxobox/core Template:Automatic taxobox Simple documentation Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 06:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
My comments were ignored, and a term, poorly sourced, was either made up or decided it was handy. Well, at least my comments were thoroughly ignored before the change was made, rather than my not having an opportunity to make any. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This RfC was well-publicized, more so than most I've launched. I even left it open for discussion for longer than necessary. Your rebuttals were all made prior to the suggestion of "temporal". Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And were ignored completely. Doesn't matter when they were made, they were ignored. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
They weren't ignored; they triggered some rash feelings between a few people, so it seemed like there was a better solution. That's why I kept looking. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And then went with whatever you found, like editing however you want, because you have administrative privileges and can edit the template, whereas I don't and can't edit the template. I would have to state precisely what edit I wanted and how and ask someone else to do it. Why don't administrators editing this template do the same that other editors have to do? Post their edits, request consensus for editing, then have an administrator edit it for them? Oh, because they don't to, because administrators can edit whatever they want without consensus, or just gather the consensus afterwards if it works and looks fine to another administrator. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Child rank}}

{{Deprecated taxon}}

{{Don't edit this line}}

  • USABILITY: Attempted (unsuccessfully) to add a null edit button to help reduce false errors
This edit does not seem to have a link to a consensus discussion? So, it's a null edit, so it doesn't impact anything, so it improves things, so it's still a fully protected template. Can I start making test edits to it? No. Please gain consensus for all edits before testing. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Examine the user talk pages and edit summaries surrounding the past several weeks; it's clear to me that I am not the only one annoyed by the now-required null edit in order to set up a taxonomy template. I'm not convinced this edit actually caused problems, though I see it was reverted within a few hours with the supposition that it was a factor in at least one glitch. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
With patchwork programming you wind up with guesswork debugging. Your annoyance is not a consensus discussion. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


If the color is to be included in the taxobox, and if the attempt is to coordinate with other colors used in taxoboxes, this discussion should be held at the general discussions for taxoboxes. I don't agree with the color choices. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This affected only parataxoboxes for fossils. The appropriate WikiProjects were notified long before the changes were made. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Where are the notices? Where is the color choice discussion and how it relates to the taxoboxes? I saw a bunch of these articles in someone's edit history, and I was confused by the color choice, they aren't animals, so why are they color-coded to be animals? Please link to the color discussion, as I think it was poorly thought out and does not distinguish that these are not animals. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, I was thinking of a different edit. This change was part of the development of the ichnobox. A template under development, last I checked, is allowed to be modified at least until it works properly. They're not the same color as animal taxoboxes. Take a look at an article such as Grallator. If you spotted one that was khaki like the taxoboxes, then that means someone used the wrong template. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Allowed to be modified by whom? By anyone, or by administrators only? Then, is there a policy that only administrators can create templates? If so, please provide a link to that policy.
Color should not even be a parameter. And Grailator looks pretty close to khaki/orangish on my monitor. The colors for the taxoboxes were not picked without discussion, creating pseudotaxoboxes for fossils is something that should be discussed with editors interested in the taxobox template, also. Editors, not just administrators. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
See above. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
See above. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


{{Pluralise rank}}





{{Taxobox colour scheme}}

Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 06:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and since we're on the topic, allow me to direct your attention to an #RfC right here on this page, which has had very little input so far. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, most of my taxa have been dead for over 1/2 billion years, so I don't much pay attention to the merely "threatened." --Kleopatra (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Responded to your comments in-line, above. And your comment above this post has me rather confused. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This looks to me like a personal issue, Kleopatra. You've made your point as many times as I've made mine, and this is just going in circles and exponentializing (not to mention I feel as though I'm being followed everywhere now aside from WP:TCG; you might as well put a decent word in for me there, too). I'm not sure why you're so bent on this, but I'm finished with this inquisition unless someone else has questions. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's quite simple Bob: you had no consensus to make these edits. Policy requires that fully protected templates be edited by administrators only when consensus is reached. As you don't want to discuss the edits after you've made them, why not discuss and request edits before you made them per policy?
Or is it simply because you have the right to edit this template and I don't? I have to follow policy because I can't break it, and you don't have to follow policy because you can break it?
How could anyone possibly protest a dozen no-consensus edits in two days to a fully protected highly used template?
This is why people don't edit wikipedia: it's a two tier system: there are editors who can do whatever they want, then get ticked off and say, forget it when called on it. Then there are editors who have to follow policy because they don't have the powers to do whatever they want.
You admit you did not have consensus for at least one of the edits you made. You don't even pretend to have consensus for the edits for the other template, just say it's not needed. You can't provide links for the actual consensus discussions for most of the edits and tie them into the edits.
Therefore I request that you follow policy by reverting all of your edits until you gain consensus.
Yeah, you're tired of answering for editing without consensus. Not as tired as I am of trying to figure out what is going wrong with the taxoboxes on major wikipedia articles as you and Smith makes dozens of edits to protected templates as if they belonged to you personally.
Do whatever you want. I can't edit wikipedia any more. This is absurd. Oh, wait, that might sound like I'm giving you permission to do exactly what you are doing: whatever you want regardless of policy.--Kleopatra (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)