Jump to content

Template talk:Taxobox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Taxobox/doc)

Template-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

[edit]

Can someone please convert {{taxobox/core}} to use {{infobox}}, like on the majority of other infobox templates? I converted the sandbox version of that template to use {{infobox}} to the best of my abilities three weeks ago on revision 1228241665, but I couldn't figure out how to make {{taxobox/species}} and {{taxonomy}} look and function exactly the same on the sandbox version of that template as on the original version. PK2 (talk; contributions) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What advantage is there in converting to using {{infobox}}? The {{taxobox}} template predates the infobox system and works effectively.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One potential DISadvantage is that text in infoboxes is smaller than text in the body of the article. Most text in taxoboxes is the same size as text in the body of the article, but authorities are usually rendered in smaller text (either via code in the taxobox template for parameters such as |binomial_authority=, code in other templates such as {{Species list}}, or HTML <small> tags). If taxoboxes used the default smaller text of infoboxes, the authorities would be "double smalled", a size which violates accessibility guidelines. Plantdrew (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed conversion to the infobox style for the sake of furthering visual consistency across the encyclopedia. I agree with Plantdrew that any MOS:SMALL issues should be resolved before such a change is implemented. — Goszei (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: Your work in the sandbox is appreciated and looks very challenging. For now, it appears that a consensus needs to be established for this major change. Please garner the needed consensus before using the {{edit template-protected}} template again. Thank you very much for your work! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no header above the second conservation status?

[edit]

I don't mean there should be one, but I can't understand why the code doesn't produce one.

If you look at {{taxobox/species}}, it generates the code for the header cell on line 2. 

{{#if:{{{2|}}}|
! colspan = 2 {{!}} <div style = "text-align: center">[[Conservation status]]</div>

This is not conditional (the #if statement in line 1 wraps the whole template), so you'd expect the header each time the template is called.

If you look {{taxobox/core}}, the calls of {{taxobox/species}} are on lines 22 and 23: 

|- style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color: {{{colour}}} }}"
{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status_system|}}}|{{{status|}}}|{{{status_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}
|-{{#if:{{{status2|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status2_system|}}}|{{{status2|}}}|{{{status2_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}

The wikitext for the header in {{taxobox/species}} is placed on a new line, but I don't think that new line is output in the wikitext, as if it was the header would appear on the second conservation status. It seems that line 23 generates the following wikitext: 

|-! colspan = 2 {{!}} <div style = "text-align: center">[[Conservation status]]</div>

The header doesn't appear as its wikitext doesn't start on a new line and is ignored. Two tests in edit preview (test with lion) seems to confirm this: 

{{#if:{{{2|}}}|! colspan = 2 {{!}} <div style = "text-align: center">[[Conservation status]]</div>
  • But adding a new line after |- in line 23 of {{taxobox/core}} produces a header for the second conservation status.
|- style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color: {{{colour}}} }}"
{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status_system|}}}|{{{status|}}}|{{{status_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}
|-
{{#if:{{{status2|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status2_system|}}}|{{{status2|}}}|{{{status2_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}

Does this matter? Possibly not if it works. I only discovered this because I added a second conservation status to Ungava brown bear, which uses {{population taxobox}} that uses Module:Biota infobox, and I was surprised to see the second header. In that code I'd added the newlines to generate the proper table wikitext. The fix was to remove the new line so the header doesn't appear, which isn't entirely satisfactory.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 5 August 2024

[edit]

Invert status trackers in dark mode for legibility of black labels.

Dark mode tests for IUCN 3.1
Status Without inversion With inversion
EX
EW
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
(all highlighted)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I've added class=skin-invert-image to the status graphics for IUCN3.1. There is an issue that the background of the image is black rather than the page background (e.g. see lion, but this is an obvious improvement so I've made the change live.
Am I correct to assume that this class should work for all the conservation status graphics (or even all graphics)? If so, I think the above issue can be fixed by editing {{Taxobox/core/styles.css}}. But all the conservation graphics images of other status systems will need updating first.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images updated with class and taxobox styles edited for transparent background.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdlrobson: The taxobox conservation status images have been updated with class=skin-invert-image as discussed above. The issue with a black background for these images has been fixed with this edit to line 7 of {{Taxobox/core/styles.css}}. I suspect that line 16 might also need changing but I'm not sure where it would have effect (possibly the dark mode gadget?) so won't make a change I can't test. Could you please have a look?  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deactivating edit request as apparently not ready to go live (and Jts1882 can do it themselves when they think it is ready). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation inconsistency APG III/APG IV

[edit]

WP:PLANTS consensus is to use APG IV (see quote, below), but on Template:Taxobox/doc, APG III remains in most locations (including in a statement on the project's consensus).

Here is the text from the taxon template on the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template):

For the largest group of land plants, the angiosperms ("flowering plants"), Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants consensus is to use the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's APG IV classification system. The APG IV system does not have formally named divisions or classes, but includes several hierarchically nested, informally named clades. The {{Automatic taxobox}} employs the informal APG clades. When using the standard {{Taxobox}}, the informally named clades should be presented by using parameters such as |unranked_divisio= in place of formal rank parameters.

Does Template:Taxobox/doc just need to be updated? Are there any locations in this documentation where APG III should remain? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an oversight, which I've updated. Documentation is often out of date so I've rephrased it to say uses the APG classification, currently APG IV.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882, That's cool. There are five more locations in the doc where APG III is used. Can you look into those, too? I'd just change them myself, but I don't have enough experience with the differences to know if one is intentional. Note that there is a place where the major ranks are given. If that has changed, it may need to be updated in the documentation. Sorry to delegate rather than just do it, but like I said, my current knowledge is limited in this area. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

[edit]

Change the NZTCS (New Zealand Threat Classification System) images and parameters to the new ones adopted c. 2021/2022 (formally recommended 2019). This includes a new classification replacing 'Recovering' called 'Nationally Increasing' (where 'NI' is under 'Threatened' in the position where 'D' used to be and 'D' under 'At Risk' where 'R' used to be). I have created and uploaded the icons to Commons, and they can be found http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Status_NZTCS_summary here under the '2022' column. This includes NT, DD, NU, Rel, D, NI, NV, NE, NV, and EX. Please also change the corresponding image in the template documentation to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Status_2019_NZTCS.svg this one. Please see Wikipedia:Conservation_status#New_Zealand:_NZTCS for more information on this, including a source to these changes (the 2022 manual). Colors taken from NZTCS series 40. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the different versions it might not be appropriate to replace the old graphics with new if the assessments in the taxoboxes use the old system. I'll have a look at the usage and see if this is an issue before updating the images.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the icons and other information for status codes are set in Template:Taxobox/species. I think that just as there are versions of IUCN, e.g. IUCN3.1, there need to be versions of NZTCS, e.g. NZTCS2022. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, that might be hard to do retrospectively. There are around 1300 uses of |status_system(2)=NZTCS and most are unreferenced. Many already have assessments under the new version. However, the changes are mainly cosmetic, using a more varied colour range for the categories. One category (Recovering) has been replaced (with Nationally Increading). That can continue to use the graphic for the old version. Not ideal but if we use the new graphics the other categories will just be in a different colour, so there shouldn't be any confusion. The alternative requires all the existing uses to be reevaluated to check the version used.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know how I might be able to retrieve a list of all the articles which presently have 'R' as their status? I don't think I would have a problem going through and updating every instance of this while properly referencing it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this search there were only three articles on species with Recovering status. Two had been updated to NI and the third reclassified as Relict. I've edited the articles to the new statuses.
Unlike the IUCN, which makes new assessments piecemeal, the NZTCS publishes a report covering all species every four to five years, so I don't see a need for retaining the old systems. I've added the NI status to {{Taxobox/species}} to allow the changes above and propose that we change the images on the other categories.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One potential hiccup I'll point out: I think I've created the diagram "technically" incorrectly, because apparently, nobody actually sticks to the 2022 guidelines (and thus neither did I). For instance, if you take a report at report 43 (vascular plants 2023), they use the new system to include Nationally Increasing, but then they fall back to the Townsend 2008 system to include one species as 'Recovering'. Report 40 (indigeneous marine inverts 2021) doesn't have any which are Nationally Increasing, Relict or Recovering. Report 41 has Nationally Increasing but then uses Declining, Relict, and Naturally Uncommon. Report 42 (indigenous terrestrial gastropods 2022) acknowledges (but doesn't need to use) Nationally Increasing but then uses Declining, Relict, and Naturally Uncommon.
Meanwhile, though, if you take a look at the 2022 guidelines, Figure 2 on page 11 is extremely clear that the 'At Risk' section is composed of 'Declining, Uncommon, Recovering' in order of most concern to least. Something I'm also realizing is that I should've put 'Not Threatened' on the same diagram as the others, because they all fall under 'Assessed'. I didn't because I feared having to fit the word 'Threatened', but I see that the diagram for COSEWIC gets around this by abbreviating it to 'Threaten.' I'll at least do that before you add these new ones. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes. I've kept the categories as-is even though they contradict the 2022 manual, because otherwise, we'd end up with a case where we technically comply with the rules but none of the reports do, thus making our diagram functionally useless. However, I've added 'Not Threatened' to it, because it's clear that (unlike Data Deficient) it's on the same axis as the others. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating edit request as it appears to be done. If there's any specific change that needs an uninvolved template editor (as opposed to Jts1882 implementing themselves), then feel free to reactivate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Taxobox&oldid=1265206092"