Template talk:Crocs

Article titles--capitalization

I noticed when creating this template that many of the croc's common name articles are capitalized (e.g. American Crocodile instead of American crocodile). This gave me trouble when creating the template links. In my experience, common names are not capitalized in the literature. Perhaps a title overhaul is in the works? StevePrutz (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been ~~several~~, no infinite, ~~discussions~~, no ~~debates~~, no arguments over capitalization at WT:MAMMAL with no consensus gained — instead it was decided that a page should not be moved just to "correct" the capitalization; those page moves are reverted. WP:BIRDS, however, came to an agreement to capitalize per ornithological consensus. Taking a quick look through the WP:AAR talk archive, it looks like they, too, came to a no-consensus consensus. Basically, if you create the article, the capitalization is your choice; if an article is already created, leave the capitalization alone. I usually only move an article if the common name is incorrect or to revert a move by someone who moved it just to "fix" the capitalization. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: For an overly-exhaustive discussion regarding capitalization from earlier this month, see Talk:Snow leopard#Secondary and Tertiary Sources on Capitalization — it appears they are headed to mediation over the matter soon. Whether or not that produces a consensus remains to be seen.... Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

I really think the simpler version of this navbox (seen here) is highly superior to the bloated version that User:Tombstone created. Does anyone else agree? StevePrutz (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that for several reasons. First, standardization; eventually all of the living things will be templated (goal is early to mid June of 2029, weather permitting) and standardization is one of top priorities of navigational templates. Second, this version groups species by genus instead of the more general family. Third, this version contains both the common names (for lay-people to navigate) and the Latin names, which also allows lay-people to familiarize themselves with common taxonomic organization. Fourth, the template in this layout can be used as a "watchlist" (by clicking "Related changes" on the sidebar) as it is intended to include every article within the taxon. And fifth, standardization. Compare to {{Cetacea}} for a good example of what I mean regarding standardization.

Now some areas have both the species template and a topics template, compare {{Hominidae nav}} and {{Apes}}. By splitting the species template off from the topics (which I moved down to the "below" section of the template) that might reduce the size and maybe encourage that template to be expanded slightly.

Regarding the bloatedness, that can be addressed by converting this template to {{Navigation with collapsible groups}} and setting each article to display only the section of the template of which they are a family member (for example, on the Black Caiman article, the template would display only the section of the template for the Alligatoridae family — using {{Cetacea}} again as an example, click on Humpback whale and see how the template opens to only that species' subfamily). I apologize for not explaining myself earlier. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. My concern is that for the less than 25 crocodilians that a huge, tall template is not the best way to jump between them. I will look into learning how to collapse the families. Feel free to make the box better. StevePrutz (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it has taken me too long to return to this topic, but I have split off the scientific aspect of this template into its own {{Navigation with collapsible groups}} over at {{Crocodilia}} that is ready to be implemented onto each article. Also, I have kept the layman aspect of this template intact at {{Crocs/test}} which can be greatly expanded with other non-taxon related articles (such as on {{Domestic dog}} or {{Apes}}). Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better than what I had in my sandbox. I say go ahead and implement it. We can just refer to history to get the older versions. StevePrutz (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think splitting the taxa away from culture is a good idea. StevePrutz (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are good to go now. BTW, you can use the Related changes link in the toolbox and use it as a croc watchlist. Nice working with you, maybe we will run into each other again! Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work. I need to look at the code and utilize it for some smaller herp families. StevePrutz (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Alligator-Crocodile differentation"

This link on the template doesn't seem to lead anywhere specific... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]