Template talk:Taxobox
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is epic phail, where is the original so we can try to copy it over properly? ħuman
20:27, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- It's amazingly complex on wp: contains about 10 sub templates as well as self references & all sorts of complexifactions. FORGET IT! Frohlich 20:56, 15 December 2008 (EST)
- Most WP templates do that, yes. I think it's a form of territoriality - a way to keep other people from messing with "your" template. ħuman 01:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- So can we delete it? It's just a copy of how it is probably "used" at one article on WP. ħuman 01:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- Delete or move into userspace, as it's presumably still a work in progress. I doubt we need such a thing as there's only an odd one or two articles that would use it. If we do use it, I say make it much much simpler. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 15:04, 21 January 2009 (EST)
- I agree, there's no way on earth it would make sense to use the WP version. Too many red links to fill in, and of course, too many templates to copy over correctly. Starting again, perhaps using something like the RWW "stalkbox" as a framework, would make sense. Put a picture of the critter at the top, and just list the taxonomy (unlinked), and perhaps the extinct/etc. status. ħuman 15:11, 21 January 2009 (EST)
- Since it didn't work, I deleted it. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistorcan't spell criticism (yes I can!) 16:48, 21 January 2009 (EST)
- I agree, there's no way on earth it would make sense to use the WP version. Too many red links to fill in, and of course, too many templates to copy over correctly. Starting again, perhaps using something like the RWW "stalkbox" as a framework, would make sense. Put a picture of the critter at the top, and just list the taxonomy (unlinked), and perhaps the extinct/etc. status. ħuman
- Delete or move into userspace, as it's presumably still a work in progress. I doubt we need such a thing as there's only an odd one or two articles that would use it. If we do use it, I say make it much much simpler. Weaseloid
- So can we delete it? It's just a copy of how it is probably "used" at one article on WP. ħuman
- Most WP templates do that, yes. I think it's a form of territoriality - a way to keep other people from messing with "your" template. ħuman
Not again...[edit]
Evil wisest Hoover! 16:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- Then perhaps someone should help me get this to work. --"CURtalk 16:55, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- Dude, you need to start from scratch. Copy a template from CP, they're all a lot simpler than WP ones, and adapt it to your "purpose". ħuman 17:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- My suggestion is to think first how many articles this will be used on & what it will add to them, then evaluate whether it's worth the effort. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 17:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- Very few and very little, probably. And I see a problem where every use will create seven redlinks for the taxonomic tree above the species. ħuman 17:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)
- Very few and very little, probably. And I see a problem where every use will create seven redlinks for the taxonomic tree above the species. ħuman
- My suggestion is to think first how many articles this will be used on & what it will add to them, then evaluate whether it's worth the effort. Weaseloid
- Dude, you need to start from scratch. Copy a template from CP, they're all a lot simpler than WP ones, and adapt it to your "purpose". ħuman