User talk:HYanWong

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

TUSC token 7c245e986dd1aeff7dd22b4486eab330[edit]

{{Alethinophidia}}[edit]

About {{Alethinophidia}}, I am not sure, you should change the caller.
I think we should suppress the template.
We have 3 serpentes templates that are not much used.
In fact, they are deprecated by the include= parameter of {{Taxonavigation}}.
If you look at {{TaxonavigationIncluded}} you will see that there are includes for:

We could create includes for reptilian orders !?
My bot would make usage of those templates.
Cheers 14:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but was trying to make minimal changes. If you'd like to suppress the template, please go ahead: it would make my life easier anyway! HYanWong (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I assumed these might be a bit like {{Lepidoptera}}, which I think is your work. I assume there's a different reason for keeping that template? HYanWong (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
p.p.s there are 2 other similar snake templates (but at the family-level): Template:Pythonidae and Template:Atractaspididae. Would it be sensible to change those too? HYanWong (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I am killing them ;-) So don't bother change the parameters.
ps: That's exactly the same problem than for {{Lepidoptera}} which has been created before the creation of the include= parameter
pps: they are already dead ;-)
Cheers 14:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fossil taxa with ⇒ rather than named levels[edit]

Hi Liné, I'm coming across a good number of fossil categories that have had changes made like this. Have you any idea why it would be better to remove the classification levels (Classis, Familia, etc.) and replace them with ⇒ signs? HYanWong (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Truth is, first time I saw that, I was shocked.
But now, I am used to it.
I even modified {{Taxonavigation}} to accept ⇒ as a valid rank (please don't shoot me ;-))
I even created include={{Fossil reptiles}}, {{Fossil Bivalvia}}, {{Fossil Synapsida}} (now you hate me ;-))
All 'Fossil XXX' categories are like this !
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Category problem[edit]

Hi Yan - I added {{Category:Washingtonia filifera}} to Category:Washingtonia filifera in Joshua Tree National Park, and it is showing up in Category:Washingtonia (which it shouldn't) as well as Category:Washingtonia filifera. Any idea what's gone wrong? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to make sure that any categories referred to within the page Category:Washingtonia filifera are surrounded by <noinclude> tags. HYanWong (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
p.s. you probably want to put {{subst:NoteTransclusion/subst}} on Category:Washingtonia filifera too, as described in the docs. HYanWong (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Not really sure what you mean; would you mind doing these, so I can see what you did for future reference, please? - MPF (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Have a look. HYanWong (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been very wary of using the <noinclude> tags on the species page, thinking they would kill the categories on that page (taking the commands at their word, "do not apply the categories between these tags on this page"). I guess it doesn't work like that?!? - MPF (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
<noinclude> simply means do not use this section when transcluding this file on other pages. It doesn't affect the original page at all. HYanWong (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)