User talk:Hesperian/Archive 37

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Paraceratherium giganteum hoax

Just for information - I PRODded the Paraceratherium giganteum article in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it has duly been deleted. I also cleaned up Alexis B.C.'s other edits there - he had put in a link for Farandona but hadn't yet put in the article. I don't know if your block here would be effective on es:wp, but anyway he did not edit there again after 9 Nov. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney-General of Western Australia

Is there a reason which is not obvious to me that this is not yet populated with recent office-holders? eg. McGinty, Porter. –Moondyne 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to massive offline disruption I don't have time to work on it but I've dumped my complete list of post-1890 AGs with dates of commission and resignation on the talk page. (Thomas Davy died in office hence the 4 day gap) All the ones after 1974 have been verified against Govt Gazettes (dunno if you know but they've been making more and more of them available online, the collection goes right back to 1967 now AND they have indexes!! fairly recent development, it only went back to 1988 until a few months ago) Orderinchaos 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Hesperian 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and 1890-1930 from Bolton & Mozley (1961), vfd against Black & Bolton vol 1. Orderinchaos 03:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps. –Moondyne 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about that comment

well said! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noongar

The edit "m (Removed category "Noongar" (using HotCat))" seems to be against my name, but it wasn't mine and I'm danged if I agree or know anything about it. HotCat is also a new one on me :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: revert

No, too late! I edit war you now ;)

Friendly banter aside, I was lazy - I should have rolled it back. cygnis insignis 13:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed a detail in this: {{Australia-rosid-stub}}. Cheers, cygnis insignis 18:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure was all mine. Hesperian 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

swinging dicks

Thanks, mate; I think that really sums it up.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only truly capable of eloquence when I'm pissed off. :-) Hesperian 04:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging or waving in the wind? Orderinchaos 04:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agavaceae

Thought it too interesting not to mention. I was reading your recent reply in the naming convention discussions and was surprised to see one of my old professors mentioned, Susan Verhoek. Small world. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; and shrinking rapidly. Hesperian 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis

I congratulate you on having found the motto - but it's not a spelling difference, it's a difference in case; cygnis is the ablative plural. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Organisations

I'd rather like to join the Parliament. How much is the membership fee? :) Orderinchaos 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Yeah I think given the Parliament has more staff than members it's not actually an "organisation" as such - to most people that work there it's more like the public service and the members are just these weird people who turn up every now and then and shout at each other. Orderinchaos 03:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW your user page gave me a giggle. Orderinchaos 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a very pertinent reminder that I am not sure I really want to come back that soon either - just looking at some lists of horrible indonesian rubbish makes me think April next year feels like about the distance Satu Suro 05:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Plant Stubs

I was depending on the first edition of Mabberley's Plant Book. Our copy of the third edition arrived last week and I haven't had a chance to look at it properly until now. I now find that he's done me in by getting rid of Lamiales altogether. My significant other, who is the real plant taxonomist in the family (PhD and post-doc), just said to me "I could have told you that". Grrr! Anyway, my apologies for adding work for you that you didn't need to do.

As an aside, with Lamiales now not a real taxon do those stubs need moving and the categories deleting? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A second lot of apologies, but I have mis-read the source. The book has been re-structured between editions and I "lost" the orders which are now all in an appendix rather than in the main section. I think I need a wikibreak. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of AWM pictures

Hi Hesperian. Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion User_talk:YellowMonkey#Military_career_of_Keith_Miller_photographs. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wildflowers of Texas

Since I don't remember why I created it, go at it. :) That's the problem with 6 gajillion edits. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common names

Hi Hesperian, As you can tell from my user page, I feel very strongly about this subject, but have usually been reluctant to discuss it openly for fear of attracting too much attention from the policy wonks. If you think I can help somewhere, let me know. --Jwinius (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wildflowers of Texas and CfD

I notice that you went and decommissioned Category:Wildflowers of Texas after getting the go-ahead from User:Woohookitty. This left an empty category which is currently under discussion at CfD.

If you want to delete a category, I think you ought to make your case at CfD first, so that more people get a chance to weigh in on the matter. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I forgot to delete it after all that; sorry, it is gone now.

I disagree. Giving people a chance to weigh in is not an end in itself; it is a means by which to gauge consensus, and is of no use when one has no need of such a gauge.

Hesperian 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A primer on taxon

Taxon has two related but distinct meanings. Per m-w.com:

1 : a taxonomic group or entity

2 : the name applied to a taxonomic group in a formal system of nomenclature

Based on what you wrote on my talk page, apparently you are aware of only of the first of the two usages. No wonder you are confused when I use the second. I will try to remember to write "taxon name" or "name of taxon" from now on. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed understanding taxoboxes

Hi Hesperian, I've started a couple of plant articles, and over time I plan on starting more of them. I don't understand the proper naming system for the taxoboxes - I'm utterly ignorant about taxonomy, but I want to get them as right as possible. I noticed that in one of the articles I started, Asclepias cordifolia (which is at DYK right now, incidentally) you updated the taxobox with this edit-[2]. It doesn't seem to match up exactly with what's at WP:TAXOBOX, but I'm assuming what you did is correct. For now, my approach is to find a closely related plant, and copy and paste the taxobox as I did with Salvia microphylla. Any pointers that would help me in future? Also, what would be the most authoritative online source for the correct binomial name, especially the name of the botanist after the genus and species? The reason I ask is that for Salvia Microphylla, I found one source that said "Benth" and one that said "Kunth". Pardon my ignorance, but if you have time to explain, just pretend you're talking to a 10-year old (which of course I'm not). Thanks. First Light (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a great help. It gives me some confidence, and a better understanding of what to look for. First Light (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Getting very hot under the collar; have become a net negative to the encyclopedia; will be back when I am ready to pull my head in and make myself useful. Hesperian 11:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting very hot under the collar – Dealing with people who refer to plant editors as a "cabal" of "pansy lovers" tends to have that effect. Melburnian (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
have become a net negative to the encyclopedia – rubbish
will be back when I am ready to pull my head in and make myself useful – nah, come back when you feel like coming back, pull your head out and keep up the always-useful contributions. Melburnian (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly how you feel. Take your time, but we look forward to eventually hearing from you again. In the mean time, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means have a break, but never consider yourself as being a net negative to the encyclopedia. It just aint so, by any measure. –Moondyne 14:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Moondyne. Have a happy Christmas around the people you love and care about, ignore the idiots here for a few days and come back refreshed :) I do know how you feel though, I get the same way sometimes. Orderinchaos 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guys; I feel better from a few days of detached lurking. Meanwhile I proofed another 75 pages of s:Diary of ten years, which makes wikibreak a misnomer I guess. Merry Christmas etcetera to all of you. Hesperian 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a net negative, what does that make me?...uh, no, never mind.... Happy etceteras to you!--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you aren't! We need you here. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can I just say that the thought never crossed my mind to quit on youse. I'm as committed/addicted to this place as ever. I wasn't even wikibonked. I was editing angry, and in a rare moment of clarity realised I had become part of the problem, so I decided to step back for a few days. I would be embarrassed for you guys to think my wikibreak was a Meatball:GoodBye. Hesperian 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodonyamate. Best wishes to you too. Hesperian 11:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah

Still in hole, (my christmas footprint is a small one). Stay there - you'll get through it - just think you are nowhere near all green eyed flies in the hills that are seeking blood at this moment (its true will try to photograph a dead one and put it in commons) - count yourself lucky wherever you may be - at least have a good new year Satu Suro 00:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with all the Blowies around at the moment? They're thick. I've been hearing reports of March Flies being bad in the hills areas also - my commiserations. I don't remember it ever being this bad. –Moondyne 01:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was down in Augusta in Dec 2005 it was ridiculous, you couldn't go out without being covered in them. The explanation someone gave me is that the dung beetles weren't breeding properly because of the oddly dry winter weather and the flies were then breeding in the dung. Dunno how reliable that is, but thought I'd share it. Orderinchaos 02:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The march flies are terrible down south, in March, funnily enough. Hesperian 03:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From above conversation we might just be talking about 3 species at the moment - the bite from the green eyed monsters from hell is unusual in that the green eyes slow down and are easier to squash in genuinely hot weather - its still cool in the shadows and they have escape velocity that makes them harder to squash. My understanding is the augusta busselton bush flies have no bite and are attracted to the salt around eyes, the suspicion is we have insufficient articles in wikipedia to explain the diffs between the eye salt attracted bush fly, green eyed blood seekers (horse?), and where does the march fit? A good bit of useful research someone - and the white coaters at aerogard have no idea about the greem eyese - their magic stuff has no effect on the blood attracted nuisance at all,sigh ....Satu Suro 10:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrownEyeseSatuSuro.JPG

The real culprit...

Ad hoc suggestions with many suggest considerable confusion as to which species is which by the slippage of common names (march, horse etc) - anyone with a clue as to a guide to all this? Satu Suro 07:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC) http://www.oocities.com/brisbane_flies/Tabanidae.htm answers my questions sorry to have clogged your talk hesp and have a good new year Satu Suro 07:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free any time mate. It is an interesting topic; my apologies for not biting. Hesperian 10:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still havent got around to see what the old goldfishbowl (ie here) has to offer in the issues - and as for bites - yeeeeehhhaaaahhh (happy new year) Satu Suro 13:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you. Yippee, I just wrote an article for a change. My first new article in nine days, I kid you not. Hesperian 13:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More power to the halophytes - the more the better I say - cheers - got it wrong the dit summary has the halopyte and the message here halophyte - clearly time to jump in the pool again - cheers - i am gone Satu Suro 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I managed to write an article about Nannup in Swedish the other day, that was good fun. Happy new year. :) Orderinchaos 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blues

[3] I hope you don't intend to hold your breath. --KP Botany (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to exhale to groan. :-( Hesperian 11:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to appeal to necrophiliacs? :) Given the prissiness of the civility police, it's probably a good idea to tone back the language a tad. It's probably good for your sanity to ignore these people for a while. It would probably be a good idea to take my own advice, especially since it's bed time. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Salvia officinalis advice, as always. Goodnight. Hesperian 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bush parrot

A sort of Hakea I'm led to believe. Sorry to see that the investment did not expand the article, but I know another that could be improved by it ;-) I was checking the ref to the esteemed illustrator at your Dryandra last night (those Hofburg fires are bad news, yes indeed), and wondered whether Ferdinand Bauer’s field drawings of endemic Western Australian plants made at King George Sound and Lucky Bay, December 1801 - January 1802. II: Families Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Campanulaceae p.p., Dilleniaceae, Fabaceae, Goodeniaceae p.p., Iridaceae, Laxmanniaceae, Loganiaceae, Menyanthaceae, Pittosporaceae p.p., Primulaceae, Proteaceae, Rutaceaep.p., Scrophulariaceae, Solanaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tremandraceae. Nota di Erika Pignatti-Wikus, Christa Riedl-Dorn e David J. Mabberley, presentata (*) dal Socio S. Pignatti. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei s. 9, v. 11:201-244 (2000) sic might have an answer for you. It doesn't, the only Proteaceae mention is a questionable identification of a "very faint fieldsketch" as Lambertia fairallii G.J. Keighery. (Without locality!) So it goes. You could recoup some of your 75 bucks by leasing it to me. cygnis insignis 13:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you of a mind to improve?—The Bauer article?—Next time I see you I must hand over my copy of Ferdinand Bauer: The nature of discovery. I suspect this would be much more useful to you than Good's journal. Hesperian 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunbury

I am well aware of the fact that you might not be familiar with Bunburys nightlife, however being an active citizen of this community, I feel that it is necessary that this is mentioned. I also realise you may not be interested in fiction writing, and also that you may not be supporting local talent. Please respect the fact that some of us do, calling this "silly games" is insulting to both myself and to these authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.123.41 (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Further more, I would appreciate it if you took the time to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_template_link#How_not_to_respond_to_vandalism and respect the rules of Wikipedia. Something you seem to have a blatant disregard for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.123.41 (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Hesperian, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aroof!

I bow to the master. --KP Botany (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hart

Hi Hesperian - have you noticed the request by Kevin Hart himself on the Talk Page (Talk:Kevin Hart (poet)) that the whole article be removed? What is Wiki's policy re this? (Oh, and Happy New Year - I've been quieter on the Wiki front in recent months as have had some contract work, but I keep doing bits here and there).Sterry2607 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you too.

Yep, I saw it. No, the subject of the article doesn't get a say in whether or not he gets an article. If he didn't want to be the subject of biographical and critical analysis, he should have pursued some other career, such as garbage collecting or postal delivery. Nonetheless I feel we should absolve ourselves of responsibility somehow... perhaps by notifying WP:BLP/N.

Hesperian 04:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hesperian - I sort of thought that would be the response. After all, it is an encyclopedia and as you say he is a person who is out there in his filed. Anyhow, how do we do that? Just point them to the discussion at the talk page?Sterry2607 (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. Hesperian 11:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Bobs worth - leave a message at his article talk page that is not the correct procedure (ie ignore dont reply rubbish) - point him to

OTRS (if there is a particular issue that he has genuine legal issue with)
Point him to WP NOT and a few others that might point out that WP is not vanity publishing like most whos whos - (try telling me they are not) - but public record material.
Point out what Hesp has said - if you live in the public domain and write poetry you gotta take the public flack whether you like it or not

Left at sterry's talk as well - if neither of youse folks do it I will - such a bland lack of understanding of what wikipedia is shows that it needs to be responded to. cheers Satu Suro 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dodonea

Good to see that art up! At my old house west of here was a very thin leafed dodonea that had a very distinct smell - not thick like the new art one - if you ever come across mention of a thin leaved variant pls let know! My old thing about wa plants with strong scents that has not attracted either a literature or even comment as far as i can tell - cheers and hope my jumping in on above issue is not too out of order Satu Suro 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how far west your previous house was. The only place in Perth where Dodonaea aptera grows is Peppie Grove. There are two other Dodonaea species in Perth: Dodonaea hackettiana (Perth Hop-bush) grows from the coast inland about as far as Kensington. Dodonaea viscosa subsp. spatulata (Sticky Hop-bush) is known only from where O'Brien Road crosses Wooroloo Brook. Hesperian 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tell a lie; there are six species that grow in Perth. Hesperian 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location is not such an issue as the narrow leaves - i no doubt repeat myself if i say i was growing tuart trees on bauxite ground etc etc - new owners wiped it out (the narrow leaf) in their great wisdom. so location - who cares - narrow leaf - i need to know which name! Satu Suro 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salamanderfish

Hi there, I am seeking advice and/or help with dealing with User:Cygnis insignis (Talk) who has been editing the salamanderfish article. My main beef wth this guy is the way he has moved the article to the scientific name. he appears unwilling to open a rational discussion about theissue and appears mostly to consider that edit summaries are all thatis required. What do you suggest I do, if anything? Nick Thorne ^talk 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to have started up on the talk page now, so that's a good sign. I will participate there.

If I understand the situation correctly, Cygnis's beef with your revert was that you didn't make a counter-argument: he gave a reason for his page move, but you reverted for the mere procedural reason that it hadn't been discussed first. You might try reverting again, with a counter-argument in your edit summary. e.g. if you think the name is unique, unambiguous, and the most commonly used name, then say so.

Hesperian 10:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleweeds

Thank you for restoring the deleted pages. Someone else deleted them again, again before I had an opportunity to see them, but they were restored yet again, long enough for me to see them. I think it would be wise to leave them restored, but what do I know? --Una Smith (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tickseed to Coreopsis

Thanks for the move. I couldn't do it because of editing on the redirect or something. --KP Botany (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Hesperian 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heheheheh

livin in the 80's indeed (aids to infectious) - i still recoil at waste transfer station signs when i go to the tip - maybe someone should find the euphemisms used by the us administration during the vietnam war - they were and remain classic removal of reality into cloud management speak with steroids Satu Suro 12:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APG in taxoboxes

Hey Hesperian, a couple questions for you, if you don't mind. I know you're making the rounds and updating certain taxoboxes with APG II clades. I was wondering if you had gotten to any of the asterids. How have you been dealing with this? I know you include "unranked_divisio = Angiosperms", but what would you put for unranked_classis? Since asterids are nested under eudicots and core eudicots, would we want to show that in the taxobox? I ask because I've been trying to figure out how to deal with that in a few articles, e.g. Tetrameristaceae. I settled on just showing asterids in the unranked_classis position, but I'm not wholly satisfied with that. Further, has there ever really been a discussion on the best possible way to display this classification? I assume everyone's on board with the changes, but "unranked" in the taxobox doesn't seem right. Might it be possible to add parameters to use in place of unranked_divisio et cetera such as "APG_clade1 = " ... "APG_clade5 = ", since the deepest clade nesting with APG II would be angiosperms > eudicots > core eudicots > asterids > euasterids I >... And then the taxobox display would say "clade" instead of unranked. Let me know if I missed some reason not to do this. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've done all of the euasterids I, and a few small groups of the euasterids II. Details are at User:Hesperian/Notes/Taxobox cleanup. For asterids I've been using

|regnum = Plantae
|unranked_divisio = Angiosperms
|unranked_classis = Eudicots
|unranked_ordo = Asterids

As far as I'm aware I have been making this up as I go along. I struggled through all these questions that you are asking me now, came to my own answers, and decided to do something, because anything is better than Magnoliopsida etc. Needless to say, I'm happy to participate in any discussion on this, and conform to whatever consensus we might come to... and fix whatever you guys agree I screwed up.

I agree that "clade" is better than "(unranked)". I am just working with what the taxobox has to offer, because when it came to adapting the taxobox, inspiration failed me. In response to your "APG_clade1" suggestions, the question immediately springs to mind: is the need to support clades broader than just angiosperms? The advantage of restricting ourselves to APG is we know all our clades fit between unranked_divisio and ordo. A more general approach would have to offer clades between each rank, and that would really suck.

Hesperian 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Heywood not use formal taxa above Order?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative, Curtis. They ranked everything mostly according to APG II with some exceptions (I'm almost finished with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Families - I'll probably get to the rest of it tonight).

Thanks for the reply and link to your subpage, Hesperian. I agree that something was better than nothing and really appreciate you taking all the time you have to fix the taxoboxes. You're right on the need to support more clades than just APG, so my suggestion for "APG_clade1" should, I suppose, just be "clade1" with 1 being at the rank of divisio/phylum. You are much more intimately familiar with the taxobox template coding than I am, so if inspiration failed you I suppose there's little hope for me! Offering clades between each rank seems like the best possible option to fill in missing pieces - is it really going to be terribly difficult beyond reason? And a related question to your asterid taxobox code above: When you use "unranked_ordo", does that place above the "ordo = " field? What if you wanted to include "euasterids I" underneath "asterids" and also display a ranked ordo? Or is that a bit like displaying subclassis on a species article and frowned upon as too much detail? Sorry for the barrage of questions! --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last question first: we're making this up as we go along, so we decide what is frowned upon. Yes, "unranked_XXXX" always appears above "XXXX". In the current taxobox implementation, if you want to include more unranked taxa, you can use "unranked_XXXX" where the XXXXs include minor rankings like "superordo". If the unranked parameters don't exist for any of these I am happy to add them.

The big problem with adding clades is that you can't just associate a clade with a rank, because you don't know how many clades are needed between each ranking. For APG, we need about 5 clades between divisio and ordo. But for some other system we might need 3 clades between divisio and phylum, or 5 clades between phylum and class. The only way to give people the control to specify both the number of clades they want and where they appear amongst the ranks, is to insert a set of clades between each ranking; e.g. clade1_ordo, clade2_ordo, clade3_ordo, etc. If you want N clades between each of M orders, you add N*M parameters. Hesperian 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I see the problem there. Ideally, the template would anticipate future needs as you suggest with multiple clades between ranks. I just don't know how intuitive it is for new editors to use "unranked_divisio" or multiple clades at different ranks, especially if they know anything about APG II (unlikely) or construct a taxobox without copy/paste from other articles (also unlikely). I suppose that would be one strength of "APG_clade1" since we know how many clades there are and at what relative levels. There are drawbacks of each - which are we willing to live with and which has more validity? If there's no other solution in sight, would that benefit from a larger discussion? I'd be interested what other projects have to say - how many would see using the unranked clades in the future? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bare minimum solution would be to add parameters like "clade_classis", meaning exactly the same as "unranked_classis" except that the rank column would say "clade" instead of "(unranked)". This would serve us just fine for now, but the general problem will have to be solved in future.

Hesperian 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.