Expanded test table and moved to Hominid/Temp. Please leave comments here (the temp page shares this talk with Hominid). --maveric149
I like the box better. I think the box should contain just KPCOF when the common name is not the scientific name; a list of species (or other child taxon) should be added when it is. --phma
- Trouble with the box is that it has all those darn br tags which are tedious and are visually distracting when viewing the raw text in an edit window. I don't think that having separate table formats for the common vs scientific name would logically flow very well -- especially when the scientific name will be just a redirect to the common name. However, in cases where there is enough of a difference between the use of the common vs scientific name to warrent having separate articles, then it would be redundent to have the exact same info in both tables (or even have a table at all in the common name entry). --maveric149, Friday, July 12, 2002
I still would like to see an example where having separate common and scientific name entires is a good idea. Hominids/Hominidae sure as heck isn't one. Would any of those people who want a systematic presentation of taxonomy object if Hominidae simply redirected to Hominids, with the format it presently has, the format presently on Hominid/Temp, or some close relative thereof with more sections? --Josh Grosse
- I can't think of a significant scientific vs common name naming conflict right now either and am content to deal with any such ambiguities on a case-by-case basis. I think its great that the genus info in right next to the text so that a reader can refer to it while reading. For example, at the end of the first paragraph it says something about closely related human relatives form the Homininae subfamily. Now, when I read that, I imediately wanted to look at a list of the members of this subfamily - and there it was, just to the right of the text. --maveric149
The table is a beautiful start, but is unfortunately somewhat cramped as far as the genus list goes. There are important critters out there with scientific names longer than Gigantopithecus and common names longer than orangutan, and the indentation for subdivisions like Homininae is important.
Hard-lining for KCOFGS is good. In such a case, should we add colons, as in Kingdom: Animalia?
- Thanks! As for the crampness, that can be dealt with by using a -1 font and if that doesn't work, then possibly using two rows per child in some visually appealing and informative mannor. The table will scale. --maveric149
Actually, the colons are an improvement (I just compared the two versions side-by-side). --maveric149
- I just removed them again since that part of the table now has a vertical line separating the two columns (therefore making colons a bit redundent -- not particularly important either way). --maveric149
I pasted the new table into the article - not because I think it is either perfect or done, but because I think most of the major work has been done and we can now risk edit conflicts because the table is not in such heavy development. --maveric149
I have an idea on use of color that I think is cool -- assign a different color for each of the 5 kingdoms. Then when you enter an article you can know right away what general type of organism is being presented (unfortunately there are way too many phyla and divisions to use different colors there). This is similar to the color scheme Bryan and I have set up for the periodic table (with each series having its own color on the table and each element's table headings will have the color of its series. --maveric149