Template talk:Taxonomy/Cetacea
Latest comment: 13 years ago by ErikHaugen in topic Cetartiodactyla
Cetartiodactyla edit
I've restored the existing consensus from the Cetacea page on how this should display; that is, with Cetartiodactyla as the parent, rather than Cetancodonta. This makes sense to me, as otherwise the automatic taxobox will present the 'Order' rank twice (i.e. for both Cetacea and Artiodactyla). At least one editor at the Cetacea page agrees, but it may be that there is disagreement more generally, and that the existing consensus may change. Does anyone feel strongly that the older 'order appears twice' format for this template should be preferred? Anaxial (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think we're all agreed that taxoboxes shouldn't have two orders. Can you clarify precisely what the problem was and desired behavior is, ie what did this fix? What page had two orders on it? I can't find the discussion at Cetacea that you're talking about, can you link to it? We have {{Taxonomy/Cetacea/Mammalia}} for keeping "order Artiodactyla" out of whale taxoboxes - where was the problem? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I found it: Talk:Cetacea#Remove_the_clades_from_the_box_please; I see now. I think the solution to these things is almost always dummy templates; I'll make a {{Taxonomy/Cetacea/Cetartiodactyla}} that is parented to Cetartiodactyla, that should keep the taxobox the same if we want to use ATs on Cetacea. Feel free to rename this if anyone can think of a good naming convention for this particular usage of dummy templates. Sound good? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the one. I was just replying when I got an edit conflict with the above! But, yes, that looks good to me. (Can't speak for anyone else, obviously). Anaxial (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok - I put the AT back on Cetacea (feel free to revert). My motive for doing these dummies is partly so it will be possible to browse the tree with an API or something and see everything; this way the Cetacea->Cetancodonta relationship is still in there. But at some point maybe it's more trouble than it's worth? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the one. I was just replying when I got an edit conflict with the above! But, yes, that looks good to me. (Can't speak for anyone else, obviously). Anaxial (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I found it: Talk:Cetacea#Remove_the_clades_from_the_box_please; I see now. I think the solution to these things is almost always dummy templates; I'll make a {{Taxonomy/Cetacea/Cetartiodactyla}} that is parented to Cetartiodactyla, that should keep the taxobox the same if we want to use ATs on Cetacea. Feel free to rename this if anyone can think of a good naming convention for this particular usage of dummy templates. Sound good? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)