Template talk:Category described in year

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles

Years

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles

Minimum year

@Tom.Reding: at Module:Category described in year the documentation says that if yearmin isn't specified it defaults to 1758. So why does Category:Crustaceans described in 1758 show earlier years? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, I've been meaning to phase that out (lower priority though). The only reason it was there was for the old nav template {{Category in year}}, but that was replaced with {{Navseasoncats}}, which doesn't use/need a |yearmin= or equivalent, but that can be added as a feature, if desired. Personally, I like the consistent size of the nav box as you approach both extremes, i.e. Category:Crustaceans described in 1758 & Category:Crustaceans described in 2018, since it maintains the pattern of what year will show up under your mouse while navigating, and keeps the same size box. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The counter argument is that there cannot be any years before 1753/1758 depending on the group, but the presence of these years, even greyed out, suggests that there could be. I understand the point about keeping the constant size of the nav box, but this could be kept even if the early years are fixed not to display. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, I've mocked up a few examples here. Let me know which one you think is most appropriate, or if anything better comes to mind. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "whitespace + dots" approach. I've suggested there another way of achieving the effect, using visibility:hidden. This ensures that the width is constant, regardless of the user's font settings, which using   may not. It may also be easier to implement: just surround any year less than the mininum by <span style="visibility:hidden"> .. </span>. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.Reding great, thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiline table in list lint error

This template generates a Multiline table in list lint error for each year that the Wikipedia commons category exists, viz: 1753, 1831, 1877, 1891. Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra insect groups

I have tried to add extra categories for example Category:Ants described in 1758 and it seems to add it to both Category:Animals described in 1758 and Category:Insects described in 1758. Is there any way to only place it in the insect category, like with the beetles, butterflies and moths? Elspooky (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elspooky: why? Ants were CfD'd here in 2018, and I don't see why they shouldn't be again. The category structure & population is even worse than it was pre-CfD. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 9#Category:Ants described in 1758. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 05:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protists described in 1753

Why is this template putting Category:Protists described in 1753 ( 11 ) into Category:Animals described in 1753 ( 0 )? Protists are not animals by definition. awkwafaba (📥) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's doing it to all protists. c.f. Category:Protists described in 1953 ( 4 ) awkwafaba (📥) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Tom.Reding:. awkwafaba (📥) 18:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template output should always be checked to make sure it produces the desired result.

Per Module:Category described in year/conf (ultimately used by {{Category described in year}}, which was added to Protists described in 1753, Protists described in 1953, and probably other categories, by Snoteleks), the default category tree is "year -> Animals:year -> Animals:century" (I'll add this to the template /doc for more clarity/visibility). There are non-animal trees available, but none that include protists, so a new tree needs to be made in Module:Category described in year/conf. I can do that soon if no one else wants to have a go at it, but I think it's important for editors creating & maintaining categories in this area to become familiar with the template/module. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba, Snoteleks, and Leonid Dobrov:

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 06:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo in comments: "cateogry"

Please consider making the following change: "Any category group (e.g. Amphibians/Birds/etc.) NOT explicitly outlined here in conf{} will follow the 'Default' tree for that group when the template is used on that cateogry." becomes: "Any category group (e.g. Amphibians/Birds/etc.) NOT explicitly outlined here in conf{} will follow the 'Default' tree for that group when the template is used on that category." ShoneBrooks (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, along with some code copy-edits that were waiting in the main module's sandbox. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]