Template talk:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip

, through, produces the call. However, this template does not have a parameter 1.--Patrick (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it by using "1" as alternative for "machine code". This change can also be made in Template:Taxonomy/sameas.

Alternatively we could change the call in Template:Infrataxon.--Patrick (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The call in infrataxon is the thing to change (done); I thought I'd updates all such calls but this one had slipped off the map. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I reverted my fix in this template.--Patrick (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Suffix /skip
The distinction in usage between Template:Taxonomy/Avialae and Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip is not clear. It should be in the documentation.--Patrick (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is putting this link here enough: Template:Automatic_taxobox/Conventions ? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added that as noinclude-part of the page--Patrick (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's get rid of this
Back in the day, Taxonomy/Avialae was the direct parent of Taxonomy/Aves. So I made Taxonomy/Avialae/skip so that Aves could have "Paraves" and whatnot in its taxobox, and all the descendant groups a.) wouldn't have "Dinosauria" and "Theropoda" *and* it would render, since there was a problem if the template depth was too high. (IIUC: some of the details are fuzzy, obviously :) ) Now, however, there are a lot of nodes between Aves and Avialae, and for some reason people are parenting stem-birds to Avialae/skip, which I think is always wrong.(?) So I propose a small change to the original plan: reparent all the immediate children of Aves to Aves/skip. Aves/skip is now reparented to Chordata, so all the crown-bird articles other than Aves should look like Aves->Chordata->Animalia. Aves itself I think is subject to debate; we'll probably need another skip template, possibly Ornithurae/skip, because I don't think people want Dinosauria on that taxobox. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Note:More discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * well, we seem to be discussing this in at least three places. Your comments above illustrate nicely a problem with skip templates: they can be made to do what editors want given stable taxonomy templates. But when, as happens frequently it seems, a new phylogenetic study comes up with new clades and new patterns of branching, and these get added to the existing taxonomy templates, the skips may no longer work. I suspect that in the end there's no alternative to setting up two (or more) variant classifications like those at Template:Taxonomy/Tracheophyta/Plantae, which is for use in traditional plant taxoboxes, and Template:Taxonomy/Tracheophyta, which is more in keeping with the systems used in deep eukaryote phylogeny. Skips are certainly less work in the short run than setting up a separate "/Aves" system, but maybe that would be better in the long run? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)