Template talk:Taxonomy/Amphibia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Bob the Wikipedian in topic Parent
 | Template:Taxonomy/Amphibia is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.
|
Parent edit
I see no logical reason why Lissamphibia has been knocked out of the Amphibia taxonomy structure here. Care to explain? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not a case of knocked out, more a case of never made in the first place. Feel free to at it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. I meant to ask about Tetrapoda. I assume the reasoning here has something to do with Tetrapoda possibly displaying either polyphyly or paraphyly? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think that was just my mistake. I forgot that the automatic taxoboxes won't display intermediates above the first formal unit. I was fearing an overly detailed taxobox. No, go ahead and add Tetrapoda! Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I figured this was something to do with that and was prepared to compromise. Actually, a week ago, that would have posed a serious problem, but Martin's updated the code now to handle 51 layers now instead of 12. I'll restore the Tetrapoda as the parent here. Lissamphibia...what was I thinking? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think that was just my mistake. I forgot that the automatic taxoboxes won't display intermediates above the first formal unit. I was fearing an overly detailed taxobox. No, go ahead and add Tetrapoda! Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. I meant to ask about Tetrapoda. I assume the reasoning here has something to do with Tetrapoda possibly displaying either polyphyly or paraphyly? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)