Template talk:Category described in year
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Tom.Reding in topic Protists described in 1753
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all sub-template talk pages of {{Category described in year}} and Module:Category described in year redirect here. |
Minimum year
edit@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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tom.Reding great, thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I like the "whitespace + dots" approach. I've suggested there another way of achieving the effect, using
- 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)
- 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)
Multiline table in list lint error
editThis 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)
- Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Extra insect groups
editI 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)
- @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)
Protists described in 1753
editWhy 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)
- It's doing it to all protists. c.f. Category:Protists described in 1953 ( 4 ) awkwafaba (📥) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to ping @Tom.Reding:. awkwafaba (📥) 18:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Awkwafaba, Snoteleks, and Leonid Dobrov: Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 06:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Awkwafaba, Snoteleks, and Leonid Dobrov:
- Forgot to ping @Tom.Reding:. awkwafaba (📥) 18:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)