Hello, there's a problem with this template I think. Everything seems fine in English Wikipedia, however when I set this template with its all sub templates, it shows all the empty taxonomic headers (for ex. shows classis although it's not defined), this is due to the changed style when I log into my account, I mean if I read the article anonimously, everything seems correct. Is there any workaround for this problem?
The problem is likely the CSS hack. The way the template suppresses text now is based on a change to the MediaWiki:Common.css to add;
/* hiddenStructure from Monobook - allows selective hiding of markup in templates */
.hiddenStructure {
display: none;
speak: none;
}
If the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have that it wouldn't suppress the text and you'd see the extra fields you are describing. That said, Locke Cole is proposing that we revert this template to a version which uses meta-templates rather than the CSS hack... which would remove this problem and others related to CSS. There is currently debate and confusion about the relative merits of CSS vs meta-templates vs 'Weeble' (another option for conditional text). Personally, I think we'll end up with a combination of meta-templates and Weeble (which is really just a sometimes better way of applying the concepts behind conditional meta-templates) and scrap CSS due to it's inherent flaws, but it is still being sorted out. In the interim you can get the kludge above added to the Turkish Wiki or use an earlier non-CSS version of this template. --CBD☎✉18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I realized the hiddenstructure parametre in the template and also realized that the problem was about it :), but I actually had no idea how to get stuff working. A big thank you :) --Alperen09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Locke Cole and I were discussing I've gone through and made some changes to the way this template works. The results displayed should not change and the CSS hack is not used, so it will work on all browsers. However, I've added new sub-templates to make the template more efficient. Since 'if defined call1' (and 'call2' / 'call3' also) nested in both the 'if defined call' and 'void' templates, each conditional section of this template was calling three other templates. Making the 'authority' lines under each of the classifications (Genus, Species, Order, et cetera) a separate call also meant three nested template calls for each of those. I have changed it so that each conditional element uses a single nested template and the 'authority' lines are all included in the same condition as the element they are an authority for (reducing six template calls to one for each of the thirty-two classification options). Thus the number of nested template calls has been greatly reduced. This also resulted in reducing the total length of the template. You can probably figure out the logic of the new format by inspection, but let me know if there are questions. I'll put some instructions on the new sub-templates later. Also let me know if anything breaks... I tested it with alot of different pages before updating, but there are always special conditions. --CBD☎✉03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text size of the conservation status section is so small as to be unreadable. Can we make it slightly bigger? In the final source it ends up rendering the text inside a double set of <small> tags. I believe one set would be adequate. Unfortunately the template is so convoluted I can't figure out how to edit it myself. Kaldari01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxoboxes with unranked entries in the classification section cannot at present be represented using this template. You can see at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox norank entry that there are quite a few (mostly among the extinct reptiles). You can see that Deinonychus and Archosaur contain three adjacent unranked entries.
There are various options, none altogether palatable:
Abandon Linnaean classification for some taxa.
Use intermediate ranks for the unranked taxa (e.g. sn2000 gives Archosauria the rank of division [2])
Remove unranked taxa as far as possible in the taxoboxes.
Extend the taxobox template to allow unranked taxa to appear. Perhaps one unranked taxon per rank would be adequate for most purposes.
I recall seeing a taxobox which handled this issue by putting the code for the 'unranked' item(s) in the preceding entry. For instance, on Deinonychus you could set, '|subordo = [[Theropoda]]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>[[Coelurosauria]]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>[[Maniraptora]]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>[[Deinonychosauria]]'. Not the prettiest methodology, but it should work. The problem with implementing this directly into the template is that you would have to list an 'unranked' parameter under each level (unranked-ordo, unranked-subordo, et cetera) to be able to determine where to place them. If it would be ok to put all the unranked items at the end that could be accomplished easily. --CBD☎✉17:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the unranked entries have to appear in their proper order. Yes, in (4) above I was imagining having one unranked parameter for each rank. Not very nice. This whole problem arises from a collision of taxonomies: the taxobox supports a Linnaean (ranked) taxonomy but experts on extinct reptiles tend to use cladistic taxonomies. Gdr17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the page I recalled which does this. See Primate for an example of unranked entries in the existing taxobox. Rather than adding lots of new parameters I might suggest another template. Something like |subordo = [[Theropoda]]{{unranked|taxa1|taxa2|taxa3|taxa4|taxa5}}. The 'unranked' template would then convert however many parameters passed to it into HTML to add the extra rows under subordo. Only problem with this is that the 'subordo_authority' (if set) would end up under the last unranked entry. Though that could be avoided by setting the 'unranked' in the authority line. --CBD☎✉18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If entries are added to taxoboxes by hacks like the one at Primate then this will cause trouble for automated tools that operate on taxoboxes. It would be better to have a recommended approach. I think that one unranked entry for each major taxon above family would handle 90% of cases: for example unranked_familia for a rank above family (and superfamily etc) and below order (and suborder, infraorder, etc). I'll try implementing this. Gdr18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In botany, "Division" is a rank below kingdom and above class.
In zoology, "Division" is a rank below order and above family. (I don't know how standard this is but it is used at SN2000 and we have some articles that use it, e.g. Heliconiinae.)
At the moment the taxobox template only implements the botanical use of "division". How can it be made to implement both? Gdr15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'divisio' used extensively for zoological boxes? If not then it can remain as is for botanical and a new 'zoo_divisio' parameter (and associated authority) be added for zoological entries. If 'divisio' is being used alot for both currently then something could still be done where we have 'divisio' appear twice in the list, but only print it if both 'divisio' and some bot/zoo identifier parameter is set. --CBD☎✉17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think zoodivisio is the right way to go (leaving divisio for plants). "Division" is rarely used in the zoological sense, but there are thousands of plant taxoboxes that use it. I added it to the template but removed it from Heliconiinae in line with the "major ranks only except where more detail is useful" guideline. Gdr17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I went back and looked at the prior multi-line taxobox... it had one line broken in the same way and that was copied over by the bot. Just an extra set of open brackets '[[' with no corresponding close. --CBD☎✉22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied over some of the templates that were missing, but it still looks wrong. I'll keep looking at it and see if I can figure out what's missing, but if anyone else wants to look, check out ga:Teimpléad:Taxobox. —Locke Cole • t • c22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like new things, you can use the old way still too. As for me, I find two letter codes easier than long-winded template names. I've made it as easy to use as possible, and stayed "backwards compatible". Enjoy!
Let me know if there's anything that acts oddly. I did do a bit of testing before I updated the template (there's quite a cache purge when you do), but let me know if anything's not right. It's moderately scary updating a template used by so many pages.
Several people have tried to change the border colour to the default grey for infoboxes, but UtherSRG, who seems to think he owns this template, has reverted them each time. I can't find any discussion where it was decided not to use grey. What does everyone else think? ed g2s • talk14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been decided to use the gray. It has never even been proposed. There has been one user who unilaterally tries to change it a lot, but he isn't into discussing things, apparently (I am not referring to you, ed g2s). --Yath15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bull, ed. I'm hardly acting alone. The following folks have likewise reverted the gray border to the current one, on this template and on {{taxobox begin}}:
I've made the conservation status (together with fossil range) a new section by itself rather than being part of the heading. It's more consistant this way and allows future expansion. I've also allowed references to be added to the status with "status_ref" (see Golden lion tamarin for the only example so far). Further tweaks may still be needed, but so far it looks like I haven't broken anything. The plan is to update all the statuses of red listed creatures and properly reference it all too. Any problems let me know ( and/or fix it yourself :) ) —Pengo17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ew. I don't like it. For now, I'm reverting. Post some mock-ups and let's work on tweaking it as a mockup before we go mucking with the template, eh? - UtherSRG(talk)18:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about it? The change basically was to make the "conservation status" look the same as the rest of template. It's much too bulky to squeeze in where it is. I also changed some wording, because I don't think (nt), (cd) and (lc) mean a lot to many people. —Pengo10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Post some examples, or links to such and we can discuss it, along with other folks. I don't believe status_ref is needed, since one can always add a ref to the end of an item (as I've now done on Golden Lion Tamarin (note the caps)). (nt), (cd) and (lc) are explained at conservation status, for those interested in looking. - UtherSRG(talk)11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some mockups:
Left to right:
How it is now (with references)
The new version (reverted)
Making the threat level more clear again with a graphic (yes, i did actually plan to discuss this one first, but the first step seemed like a no-brainer. Also the font size isn't meant to be bigger here.)
Also, adding a ref to the end of an item works with the name, but not with the status code, unless you keep using the old status-templates, which i personally find pretty horrible. But other suggestions are welcome.
I think version two looks a lot cleaner than the original (1). Also I don't see why someone should look up what "(nt)" means when the whole of "Conservation status: Lower risk (nt)" could be replaced entirely with just "Near threatened" and convey much more in much less space.
I believe it should be "Lower Risk (Near Threatened)", not the other way around.
Months ago, we uncolorized the conservation status on the grounds that the colors were not NPOV. I'm thinking your graphic will be judged the same way.
I think taxoboxes should be as concise as possible. It is better to make things like conservation status only a small text, instead of a large section.
It's not so much that I like the term "population status" as that I'm not fond of "conservation status". "Conservation" doesn't fit with many of our "special" statuses such as "fossil" or "extinct" or "prehistoric". And it doesn't sound particularly NPOV, implying that a species is "extinct" because it wasn't "conserved" (although that may well be the case). By the way, the IUCN uses the term "Red List Category" instead. If I wasn't pushing to put it in its own section, i'd be pushing to have the heading removed entirely and simply write "Endangered" by itself under the plant/animal name, with a link to "Endangered species" or "conservation status" or "Wikipedia:Conservation status" (the "Conservation status" heading randomly pickls between either of these last two in different templates)
It's a bit more complex than that. The most recent red list categories (2001 cats) leaves out "Lower risk" and simply has NT and not LR/nt, which is only used for species which have not be re-evaluated since the change. (1994 cats.) I kept the "lower risk" part to keep it consistant with our current wording, but really "lower risk" should only been shown on species evaluated with the old system, if at all. I'm working on a bot to update all species to their current IUCN red list category complete with references by the way, so LR/nt and NT will be distinguished, at least potentially. Fortunately there's only two category sets in use.
Interesting point you raise about POV of colours. I'm no graphic artist and someone else could have a go at making a graphic. We'd probably need two versions depending on the criteria used (the 2001 categories drop "LR/cd" as well as not classing NT & LC as under LR) of the 1994 cats.). And I'm still a bit vague about it.
(in response to Ucucha): the section isn't really significantly larger than the status as it is today (Note that the conservation status is stretching the original version horizontally). And the graphic only adds a couple of lines (and it could be squashed more)
I agree with having reference to IUCN, and that was one of my main reasons for touching the taxobox template (I thought i'd clean it up while i was at it). But i've gone about it another way, putting in a <ref> tag, which does already include the id and the same link to the site. (e.g. see Sand Cat). But if a straight id + link is preferred (as with nl) we should go that way. (I'm readying a bot to do it either way) Comments welcome.
Another thing I'd like to discuss. Adding "population trend" to the population status. This could either be in the form of text ("population decreasing") or incorporated into the graphic (e.g. the circle could become an arrow left or right), or a stand alone arrow (up/down) like on the redlist site. Note that only a relatively limited number species have had "trend" evaluated. Values are: up, down, stable, unknown (and "unevaluated" or blank). —Pengo00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so sometimes I'm just a no-change kinda guy and it takes me soeme time to say I'm wrong. It's been a few months, and I'm seeing things with different eyes. So here it is. I'm wrong. I like your middle version, now, better than the existing format. Let's point some folks here to look it over and get buy-in to make the change. - UtherSRG(talk)12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look over it, and I do, primarily, like the idea. However, there are a few things which concern me. The biggest of which is the change from "conservation status" to "population status". It isn't saying that a "species is extinct because it isn't conserved", it is stating what importance conservationists need to place on a species. The purpose of the conservation status is a tool for conservationists. I like the idea of the graphic, as it makes it more user friendly. However, the current graphic is a little clunky. Maybe we should ask a graphic designer Wikipedian to make which flows better. Also, I don't see a need to clutter the taxobox with citations. Ideally, an article should have a conservation status section, and all the citations could go there. If it is a stub, just have a general reference, as is what happens now. --liquidGhoul01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Population status vesus Conservation status. However, "population status" already has a meaning in conservation ecology and in biology. It means the size and distrubution and any associated changes in either. In conservation biology species for which there are insufficient data are often so listed because the current population status is unknown or insufficiently well known. On Wikipedia what will this mean? Population status "insufficient data" will means its population status is insufficiently known because its population status is insufficiently known? "Conservation status" is the term that is used, and personal preferences in terminology should not be a deciding factor in creating neologisms, or changing the meaning of an existing word to something else to use on Wikipedia.
The section (as it currently stands) should really be renamed IUCN Category. There are, however, still many many pages which seem to have arbitrarily chosen a category or are at least are unreferenced. e.g. these. —Pengotalk · contribs00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
