User talk:XyZAn/sandbox/XyZan's Cladogram project

I very much appreciate the hard work

…that you do, and the initiative taken. The matters at hand are simply one of the best way, for the sake of the encyclopedia, to present M&A information. My opinions are as one who has used actual cladograms, as a part of undergraduate research, in the most expert of venues, in my past (and to some extent, graduate work also, and then periodically, as a professional, as well). The best that I can hope for is to expand your understanding, so that you see how these are normally used, and what they usually imply through their appearances. All the best. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, I have an undergraduate degree in Genetics, a Masters degree in oncology, I'm a qualified global finance professional. I'm a acutely aware of the scientific usage of cladograms, I've drawn enough to know. What you fail to understand is that they're is no scientific connotation meant through the use of the those diagrams, it is an attempt to be the best representation of the data we have at hand, to the average reader. The presumption is, that the reader has no scientific/business background. As a simple infographic, those diagrams hit their goal. Granted, they could be better - and perhaps they will become better, but measures have been taken to ensure those diagrams do not mislead the audience, acquisitions are noted, in their respective year as are sales. You fail on a number of levels, your argument seems to be on the usage of the word cladogram - so why don't we simply remove it? That would have been the collaborative way to go. You also manage to completely fail to identify the audience in your world only professionals or those in the know would be able to comprehend an article.

Further, what you completely fail to realise, is that wiki is a collaboration of editors with different backgrounds/strengths. You come to an article or a group of people and alienate them with a faux superiority complex. You make no attempt to work with anyone, simply assuming you 'know more'. I don't know why your here - it's clearly not to do anything constructive. A quick look through your talk page shows how poorly you conduct yourself with other editors. You have zero skill in communication, numerous users have told you this. Your responses are at best verbose and at worse boring, confusing and completely miss the point, leading to a 'tl;dr' response and people hope you just move along. If you cannot see that you have put yourself into a corner with your overly confrontational attitude then there is no hope for you here in wiki. You display some of the worst qualities I've ever seen here. You have a lack of understanding of simple aspects of wiki, I don't know how many times i've seen users write on your TP about tag bombing, yet you continue to do it. You've displayed ownership behaviour of articles, have engaged in edit wars and have been accused of disruptive editing, you alter other users posts. I can't fathom a positive thing you've contributed to any of the pages I've seen. XyZAn (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see this substantial post from you. I am aware I have angered you. Four brief points. 1. Your background is esteemed, as is your work experience. 2. Cross-application of cladograms is done, but not as you have done them, see citation on astronomy, etc. 3. Dropping use of cladogram, and moving to business infographic is a good step, but it does not fully address matters. 4. Your statements regarding my valuelessness, here, were read.

Regarding what is not yet grasped/addressed. Your...

• graphics are not uniform in presentation, implying that some sort of information is implied in how different historical events are presented, but there is no explanation of what you mean by the nuances of your images. If you wish it to be a simple infographic, make it so. Make them line by line uniform, so that the image appears step by step uniform. Otherwise, you have attempted an incompletely explained middle ground of graphic design, see next.
• graphics are unimaginably hard to consider keeping up-to-date, especially as they are now (unexplained, non-uniform, and richer in intended meaning than you have owned up to). I and others will add to tables, but most, I would guess, will not touch this informational format as it stands, because there is too big a risk of mucking it up, because of the complexity of the markup. I call you to your own words—this place is intended to be collaborative. You have offered a creative infographic that for the present, only you properly understand, are trained to create, and keep up to date. Non?

Then, I would point out that infographics are not so very common in collaborative wiki settings—they are usually limited or sole author works (in business comms, science, etc.). There is good reason. A good infographic—one that accurately reflects content, has pedagogic value, is appealing to the eye, etc. is going to be complex in design, and even moreso in the html markup required for its proper representation of the information/data. I stand by my argument that using such for the complexities of M&A (and merge-split, and inverses, etc.) cannot possibly capture information in a way that others can readily edit after you are done. If you do not believe this, review the records of your posts, and see the extent to which your efforts are endpoints, versus springboards for the efforts of others (as a simple table would be). You know as well as I, given that your work has taken you also into business, that we pour over what—the footnotes in the financial statements of companies. The devil is in the details. A table that anyone can add to, that you apply yourself to making sure is accurate (all populate, you review, correct and annotate) would be, in my opinion, the way to go. Your skills and abilities are well-used in the recording and analysis, but poorly applied in the graphics.

As far as the attempt to put me in my place, via demeaning comments, please understand that I never intended this to be anything other than a call for expert opinion, and then revision of concept, or perhaps decision to return to tabular format. Jytdog and Boghog's entering complicates matters, always, as they knee-jerk oppose, defend others (like yourself, who are quite capable of their own defense, etc.).

As far as the demeaning conclusions—were I truly as valueless as you say, MDR, perhaps I should despair. But I would guess that I am about the age of your father, or perhaps between your father and grandfather. With I hope, as much accomplishment on their part, as their offspring's accomplishments suggest (and so for me). As long as this place is an unassailable bastion of plagiarism, of unsupported contentions (paragraph after paragraph, section after section, article after article unsourced or poorly sourced), as long as images from Wikimedia commons remain a back door to introduce untraceable content, etc., I will stay to do my public service here. My age, experience, and values mean that I care very little about being disliked; prima facie honesty with readers, especially younger ones (lower sixth form and earlier), accuracy of content, traceability of statements, validity of sources, preponderance of expert opinion rather than narrow opinions presented, etc.—these are my concern (and in Plagiarism v Tagging, you know on which side I fall). Otherwise, know that if you step back you cannot possibly know all that I do in my edits here, and so cannot truly believe the hard conclusions you have drawn. Your MS tells me otherwise. (For balance, look at acetone peroxide edit history, and see that the vast majority of my edits remain, and only the content of the article expert needed tag was shortened; indeed, the lede edit kept much, and what it changed introduced mistakes, see lede in markup, history.) That said, I value honest feedback even when disagreeing with it, and I respect you, and wish you well in your endeavours. My "attack"—if that is what it was or how it was perceived—is on the validity and wisdom of the method applied, and not on the person. I apologise if it came across otherwise. I hope you will thoughtfully consider the substance of the points raise (even if Jyt and Bog manage to bury them again). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Clade template and transclusion depth.

There has been a change in the way the Wikimedia software handles transclusion which resulted in some of the deeper cladograms giving errors, which are listed at Category:Pages_where_expansion_depth_is_exceeded. I have made a couple of changes to the clade module that implements the {{clade}} template, so as to enable much deeper cladograms. One allows the addition of subtrees that are independently transcluded so don't add to the depth. I haven't updated the documentation yet, but this method is illustrated at {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}. This second method is the one that I think will be most useful for company acquisitions and utilizes a new template ({{clade sequential}}) for simple sequentially nested cladograms.

{{Clade sequential |label1=label 1 |1=Leaf 1 |label2=label 2 |2=Leaf 2 |label3=label 3 |3=Leaf 3 |label4=label 4 |4=Leaf 4 |label5=label 5 |5=Leaf 5 }}

label 1 Leaf 1 label 2 Leaf 2 label 3 Leaf 3 label 4 Leaf 4 label 5 Leaf 5

{{Clade sequential |inverse=yes |label1=label 1 |1=Leaf 1 |label2=label 2 |2=Leaf 2 |label3=label 3 |3=Leaf 3 |label4=label 4 |4=Leaf 4 |label5=label 5 |5=Leaf 5 }}

label 1 Leaf 1 label 2 Leaf 2 label 3 Leaf 3 label 4 Leaf 4 label 5 Leaf 5

I've made the changes at a couple of articles giving template expansion depth errors: Amgen (a simple example) and Abbott Laboratories (a more complex example mixed with {{clade}}. The new method makes the code much simpler. Let me know if there are any questions or specific needs.   Jts1882 | talk  10:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)