Jump to content

Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Topics from 2008

Data deficient status

Is there any particular reason that the data deficient IUCN status is not linked and doesn't have an image? The image is there ... could someone change this? Frickeg (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it also does not have a category. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
True. I think this needs changing, but not being an administrator could someone else? Frickeg (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox w/ user-controlled second branch?

_ _ In viewing the Australopithecus article, which includes a Taxobox, i was struck by my many decades of knowing roughly what Hominidae means, but not retaining any further information. (I also admit to ignorance of whether, for instance, the differences among the subfamilies of Hominidae are similar in degree of difference to those among the subfamilies of other primate families -- let alone among those of families within Carnivora. Nevertheless...) I now feel -- after additionally accessing (via Rdr Homo sapiens) Human, (via Hominidae) Great ape, (in desperation) Hominina (where i strained to discern the first i in "Ardipithecus" in the multi-flawed graphic), and Ardipithecus -- that i know something worthwhile in learning that Homo, the gracile australopithecines, and probably Ardipithecus, have in common membership in the Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini and Hominina.
_ _ I would say that the long and noble history of the accompanying template probably demonstrates that the familiar single-branch display is effective, and is the form that should be displayed whenever a user opens a page containing a Taxobox. On the other hand, i think instructive value would justify letting the curious user click a control to see a forked branch (that shows no taxon twice), but in the case of say, Russian Tortoise, incorporates the tree portions of the current Taxoboxes of Human and Russian Tortoise. (In fact, it would be great if, for instance, the taxobox of African Civet could have two new options, one adding the Human side-branch and, in light of the expression "civet cat", one adding instead the Cat side-branch.) This would not only create a means to offer some high-interest info that is otherwise a task to find, but by example, provide editors an incentive to do the research needed to add the branches to the markup, instead of leaving that to be repeated by each interested user.
--Jerzy•t 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Status images

{{Taxobox | color = lightgreen | image = Utricularia inflata illustration.jpg | image_caption = | image_width = 300px | status = LC | status_ref = | regnum = [[Plant]]ae | divisio = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]] | classis = [[Magnoliopsida]] | ordo = [[Lamiales]] | familia = [[Lentibulariaceae]] | genus = ''[[Utricularia]]'' | species = '''''U. inflata''''' | binomial = ''Utricularia inflata''}} (nowiki'd because it no longer demonstrates the problem being discussed, and was putting this page into Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter. Hesperian 04:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Something I noticed the other day (as a consequence of diff?) is that the image_width parameter meant for the image of the species now changes the image width of the status images - or has it always done this? And is this desirable? Shouldn't we force these to stay smaller so they don't break out of their resolution (240 × 64, but they are svgs). Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The background for this is above, section #Defer to user preferences for image size. Is this an issue, considering they are svgs? If so, would it be fixed by setting their nominal sizes to 300 x 80, so that they scale down rather than up? If so, is this as trivial a task as I think it is? Hesperian 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I saw the discussion above and I agree with the decision. Just wondered what should be done or if it was a problem that the image_width parameter also now controlled the size of all images in the taxobox (as all have the "frameless" bit). Has this created any problems with competing image_width parameters, like a range map width? I just saw it and thought the rather large status svgs (when image_width was manually set to enlarge the main image) looked a bit silly. --Rkitko (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see... I think... but can you point me at an example anyhow please? Hesperian 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know I've seen it before, but I can't find where in my contributions I've run into it recently. I usually have just removed the image_width parameter to correct the situation. See a mock example to the right and play around with it. (Of course the image really isn't that large at Utricularia inflata.) --Rkitko (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- Okay, I see your point. My take on this is that when people overrule the default thumb size, they generally intend it to affect only the image, not the status box. The solution is to change the status box widths from 

{{{image_width|frameless}}

to 

frameless

How does that sound? Hesperian 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks. --Rkitko (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No further comments... then done. Hesperian 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I think this should have an imagemap to the place where it says Least Concern, EExtinct, etc. Clicking on one of the bubbles will go to the right page. Remarks? Soxred93 | talk count bot 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Telescopic taxobox and redundant {{{binomial}}}

Verisimilus T 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Color parameter?

Is the color parameter actually used for any legitimate purpose? I have noticed that it appears to be used primarily for light vandalism (e.g., changing the color to black or blue so that captions can't be read). Is it a good idea to remove the parameter optionality so that the color is always the default pink? Silly rabbit (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The colour varies with kingdom. Plants are green, for example. As for doing away with the parameter, you're seven months late - see Template talk:Taxobox/archive010#Automatic colour detection. Feel free to remove it any time you see it. Hesperian 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And feel free not to remove the parameter; because of the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage, I'll be removing them by bot from all 51,000 articles soon. If the bots approval group ever gets round to approving this... That takes ages... -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a field in the box for a link to the new Encyclopedia of Life, like the links to IMDB in Template:Infobox Film or to Boardgamegeek in Template:Infobox_Game? I'd do it, but can't edit this page. — Aldaron • T/C 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why to that one and not to any of the other number of such sites? given the fluid nature of taxonomy, I'd say no to any of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would most assuredly not link them - they use ITIS as their baseline taxonomy, which simply means that en:Wikipedia is better ;-) For example, EoL sucks in passerine taxonomy. The entire thing is generally suspect at present, as very little of it has ever been reviewed by someone who knows their job. Whereas Wikipedia is for the most part reviewed. And in my experience, you can trust interested layfolk more than you can trust automated large-throughput parsing.
I would go as far as to explicitly prohibit its use on Wikipedia as a taxonomic source, indefinitely. There is at present almost no taxonomic/systematic information in it that cannot be gotten from closer to the primary source - i.e., the original studies, or the latest reviews. And in groups like dinosaurs (including birds), mammals, possibly fishes for example, I see no reason why Wikipedia can't always be a tiny bit more up-to-date and thorough, especially regarding larger systematic shifts.
BUT: see here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like NIH to me. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the taxonomies here on Wikipedia, but surely the EOL is an encyclopedic source for other highly relevant information—enough to justify a link. (Note though, that one of my initial justifications is no longer valid: neither the game infobox nor the film infobox now link to external databases, so it may be that this idea falls victim to a general, and in my view crippling, dislike of non-Wikimedian encyclopedic sources.) — Aldaron • T/C 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether EOL is a suitable place to link in the article, but am strongly opposed to adding external links to the taxobox. Hesperian 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I think the issue is not limited to this template, but is a larger one about whether to link to external encyclopedic sources in infoboxes. For a while there were examples of doing this (above) but these are no longer implemented. The right thing do to is probably to have a standard approach throughout Wikipedia (but I'm not sure where that discussion should happen). If that approach leaned towards inclusion, I think a good case could be made for adding EOL to the taxobox. — Aldaron • T/C 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Standardisation is overrated. I support the infobox at Amazon.com containing a link to http://www.amazon.com. I don't support every species article containing a link to a more-or-less arbitrary external resource. Hesperian 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That example isn't relevant. — Aldaron • T/C 04:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. What happens over there isn't necessary relevant to what happens over here. Hence standardisation is overrated. Hesperian 04:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hesp and Dysmorodrepanis, for the reasons they gave. We shouldn't include the link. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't dwell on the pros or cons of the Encyclopedia of Life, but I will say that there are plenty of plant species where I'd rather link to PLANTS, efloras.org or a US Forest Service publication (there are several good ones online), if I had to pick just one external link for the taxobox. But I'd rather stick with an External links section, with the decision of what to include based on WP:EXT. There is a lot of well-thought-out guidance there about what to link to and how. Kingdon (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why isn't the Budgerigar taxo box pink? Aren't animal related taxoboxes pink? -- penubag  (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We got sick of pink. All the animals have a new colour now, including budgerigars. There's some discussion above here if you're interested. I hope the change doesn't confuse too many people. —Pengo 09:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thank you for replying, would you mind changing it on the template page to avoid confusion? -- penubag  (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Auto-cat

The status value "fossil" triggers inclusion in Category:Invalid conservation status. Seems like a taxobox template code problem. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because "fossil" isn't a valid conservation status. I can't remember where the discussion about this was held - taxobox usage, perhaps? Verisimilus T 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not human

Do you agree with me if I say that the images in these infoboxes most often should be from groups in which the human is not a member of? So you can see how different it can be from a human. --212.247.27.126 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since humans would only qualify for a tiny percentage of all taxonomic groups, as you describe it is just the way it presently is. E.g. you won't find a photo of a human in an insect taxobox :-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific classification > Biological classification

For a long while there's been a general consensus on the Scientific classification talk page that the latter article should be moved to Biological classification and this will proceed in a few days from now if there are no significant objections. The main problem is that we have around 90,000 articles linked to Scientific classification, nearly all of them from the taxobox. When the move is accomplished, Scientific classification will probably become a disambiguation page, in any case the heading that links to it in the taxobox should either link to Biological classification instead or should be delinked. Could people here please commit to altering the taxobox in tandem with the move so that everything proceeds smoothly? Gnostrat (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If Scientific classification is moved, I (or someone else) will update the taxobox. After the move, please keep Scientific classification as a redirect for a day or two; it will take a while before all of the articles that use this template are updated. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a question. I counted the 90.000 links. But it was just an intelligent guess that 99% of them where related to this one Taxobox. Now I am not familiar with this taxobox, and I an wondering. is there only 1 taxobox, or 10, 100 or 1000s of them? And could this eventualy be a problem? -- Mdd (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There's one taxobox template, and there should be no problems. Once the taxobox template has been updated it will be a trivial task to find the other links; you can always request a bot if there are too many to do by hand. Verisimilus T 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This sounds like a dream comes true. -- Mdd (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just changed the link in the template to Biological classification; the database should be up-to-date by the time the move request poll ends. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bacteria Taxonomy

Wandering around the various microbiology pages and looking at the taxoboxes for many bacteria I have noticed some of them are incorrectly classified. Then I became curious - do they appear incorrectly classified to me because I get my classifications from a different source? And do the classifications for Bacteria and Archaea that are on Wiki indeed come from the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology? This is a site that's dedicated to tracking new and official names of prokaryotes http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/[1]. Jessica87au (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to make it easier for other wikiprojects to use the Taxobox

Hi. I'm one of the maintainers of articles that use the Taxobox on the Icelandic Wikipedia. The Taxobox is a very complex template which we occasionally have to copy as-is from the English Wikipedia and then proceed to make alterations to it required for localization.

I'd like to propose the following to make this process easier for all wikis that copy this template:

Move English-specific strings out of the template itself and into sub-templates, e.g. instead of writing "Fossil range" write "{{Taxobox i18n:Fossil range}}". This would save me edits such as this one when I move the template over.

--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't stuffs like Kingdom, Division, Class, Order etc be linked to the relevant page? --220.255.53.160 (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of conservation status code

Folks,

The current conservation status code dumps everything into generic categories such as Category:Endangered species, Category:Vulnerable species, etcetera. These categories contain thousands upon thousands upon thousands of articles, which is a problem. They are supposedly defined strictly in IUCN terms, which is also a problem, but we ignore that and dump articles into them no matter what the status system, which is also a problem. I had intended to take one small step towards rectifying this, by segregating the "status_system=iucn" articles into categories like Category:IUCN Red List endangered species. However the current conservation status code is gloriously concise, and therefore unmaintainable, so it is impossible for me to take my "one small step" in the current code.

I have therefore re-written the conservation status code in a slightly longer but utterly straightforward manner. The basic structure is 

if there is a status parameter
   output header
   if there is a status_system parameter
      switch status_system
         case IUCN 2.3:
           switch status:
              case EX:
                 output "Extinct (IUCN 2.3)"
              case CR:
                 ...
              ...
        case IUCN 3.1:
           ...
        ...
   else
      switch status
      case EN:
         ...

This code is currently located at User:Hesperian/Taxobox. There is a test suite at User:Hesperian/Taxobox test suite. You are welcome to edit at either of those pages.

As far as I am aware, this code is functionally equivalent to the current code, with one exception: it handles nonsense inputs much better. For example, the current taxobox tries to accept status=G4 | status_system=iucn3.1 and ends up displaying an image redlink. The new code will display "Invalid status (IUCN 3.1)" in the taxobox, and place the article in Category:Invalid conservation status.

Can I get your approval to make this change? At this stage I have not implemented the proposed category changes; that can wait.

Hesperian 06:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to add DD, at least (See Kultarr). Also, you don't always utilize status_ref correctly (see Long-tailed Pygmy Possum. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, excellent feedback.
DD was there, but I hadn't attached it to the IUCN system - neither the code nor the images gave any clue as to its purpose. That's fixed now, and Kultarr has been added to the test suite. Should NE (Not evaluated) and NR (Not recognized) be attached to the IUCN system too?
As for status-ref, I had omitted it from the no-status_system case. That's fixed, and I've added Long-tailed Pygmy Possum to the test suite. Note that this one doesn't get an IUCN image, because no status system is given. I could set the code to recognise the status system for unambiguous statuses like this one, as a temporary measure, if you want. In the long run, the appropriate course of action is to set the taxobox to tag into a hidden category, Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter, and work on emptying that category. Which is something that I would be happy to do.
Hesperian 11:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I picked those two species at random, and both had an issue. I was going to fix the possum, but then realized you'd want it "as is" for your testing, so I left it. Hrm. "NE" I think should be included, but should be handled like "DD". "NR" probably means that the species was identified (or elevated) after IUCN's most recent listing. Do we have any taxoboxes using NR? As for the "needing a status system" category: YES PLEASE!! :) I have plenty of time on my hands to work on emptying that, too. I only wish I had my MSW3 with me. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
With typical programmers' hubris, I was expecting no problems. And now with typical programmers' hubris, I suspect you got lucky scoring two from two, and you won't find any more errors. I've added Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter, but won't actually create the category until this goes live. I've moved "NE" into the IUCN systems. I've also moved "NR" in, based on its use in article such as Dwarf Manatee and Chapin's Crombec. However I believe that NR is not really a valid status; rather it is used to explain the absence of a status. I think in the long run these uses of "NR" should be changed to "See text", and "NR" removed. Hesperian 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL. I know that hubris all too well, as I have it myself most of the time. :) Your rationales sound good. I'm ready for it to go live. Would be nice to get another set of eyes or two, though, to see if they get lucky. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I shall restrain my eagerness and wait a day or so; there's no rush. Yes, more eyes would be good, especially Pengo's. Hesperian 23:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry didn't reply sooner. I haven't looked in too much detail yet, so I might mention already solved issues. The restructuring looks good basically, as the current one is getting pretty messy. But personally I'd like to remove automatic categories all together from the template, so that any keen Wikipedian can re-organise pages into appropriate categories. I'd prefer a more fluid, human-friendly system, as I think that's what Wikipedia excels at, and leave more rigid systems to projects like Freebase. E.g. so we can have "Critically endangered birds" or "Threatened species of New Zealand" (or both) or "Near threatened animals of Africa]] if that's what editors think are good categories for those domains; and you don't need a huge discussion and a template wrangler to make the changes.
For default images, I'd prefer to keep IUCN 3.1 images when the category fits. One thing I like about how the template works now is that if you don't add a status_system is basically guesses., On second thoughts, it's probably good to leave off the graphic unless it's unambiguously one system. (e.g. LC/cd or LC/xx is always IUCN2.3). Having no graphic gives editors (including myself) motivation to include the system too. (I really need to get some time to start up beastie bot again.. I only marked status_system on pages that really needed it the first time it went through, because the taxobox didn't use it so much like it does now). Um... I remember I did ask (when making changes to the taxobox) if people thought having separate categories for different systems (IUCN endangered vs EPBC endangered, etc) was a good idea, and I remember the consensus being "no, keep them together". I don't really have that much of an opinion. It depends largely on how it's to be used. I imagine people might like to see all mammal species considered endangered by any system, and would be frustrated having to browse all the different system-specific categories -- but equally they may wish to only see only IUCN assessed ones. Part of the problem is that you can't do boolean searches in categories (i.e. using keywords AND, OR, NOT).
"Not evaluated" generally should be left off, but in cases where many of the other species in the genus or family are assessed, it may be appropriate to note that "this one isn't". (I did see "Not evaluated" in a taxobox once and thought "Yeah, I'm glad it's there actually".) (Also I haven't thought about NR much, but Hesperian's opinion sounds good to me: change them to "See text") —Pengo 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you on the loss of flexibility of automatic categories. What started all this for me was that I created a Category:Biota of Australia by conservation status subtree, tagged a lot of articles into categories like Category:Critically endangered flora of Australia, then found I couldn't remove redundant supercategories like Category:Critically endangered species. I considered asking for the auto-categorisation functionality to be removed altogether. But on reflection I came to the conclusion that there is no reason why we can't have multiple subtrees: Category:Endangered species by country (e.g. Category:Endangered biota of Australia), Category:Endangered species by taxonomy (e.g. Category:Endangered mammals), Category:Endangered species by status system (e.g. Category:IUCN Red List endangered species). And I couldn't see any reason why the taxobox oughtn't autotag into the last of these, at least for now, until someone is ready to subcategorise it.
Okay re: keeping the images where the system is obvious from the status. I'll fix it up so that the right system image is used but it still tags into the "missing status" category. Once the latter has been emptied, the guessing code will be redundant and therefore subject to removal.
Hesperian 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added guessing cases for the unique IUCN 2.3 codes, all of TCN, and nearly all of DEC. All the other status systems have significant code overlaps. Hesperian 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone live this this. Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter is in there but Mediawiki performs template-based category membership updates asynchronously, so it might be a while before it gets populated. Hesperian 04:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Something I overlooked. I have removed the missing-status-system category for some cases lacking a status system, such as the "See text" case. Hesperian 05:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Orca article seems to have a broken taxobox. Could this be related to the recent changes? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. What do you see as broken? - UtherSRG (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My new code broke taxoboxes that use the image2 parameter. I discovered it when fixing the status section for Minke Whale, and fixed it already. I guess maybe I fixed it in between your two comments. Hesperian 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that these changes are responsible for the changes in many, many infoboxes. I am wondering why the Lower Risk categories now include "Lower Risk" in the taxobox. This is a very unwieldy change that causes many status areas to become very messy (see Brown Antechinus, for example). Could these categories be returned to simply "Least Concern" or "Near Threatened" without including the Lower Risk? Frickeg (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is trivial to fix this. But under IUCN2.3, the status is actually named "Lower Risk Least Concern" not "Least Concern". For example the Red List entry for your Brown Antechinus is entitled "Antechinus stuartii – Lower Risk Least Concern".[2] Are you quite sure you want to go back to "Least Concern"? Hesperian 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Frickeg. I believe we had a discussion about this somewhere, somewhen, during one of the other taxobox rewrites, and it was agreed that the shorter naming would suffice. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I clearly exceed my brief in letting that change slip in. I'll fix it right away. Hesperian 02:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You da man. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think overall this is an improvement :). However, I wonder if I could trouble you to add a graphic and category for Data Deficient species, as well as link it? I know that there's a graphic around somewhere, and there is also a page at Data Deficient. Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Pengo's the man to talk to about graphics, as he is the author of the present set. Hesperian 11:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, from the above I'm not sure whether to use NE or NR, seeing as they basically mean the same thing. I think it's NE. Am I right? Also, if I may put in my two cents on the categories, is there anything wrong with an umbrella category including all species with the status and then subcategories as well? (For example, Critically Endangered species, which has all critically endangered species, and then subcategories (Critically Endangered species by country, etc.)) Frickeg (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. "Data Deficient" is DD. "Not evaluated" is NE. "Not recognised" is NR, but there seems to be agreement to deprecate this option. Yep, that's the idea for categories. Hesperian 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
For someone who didn't know what I was asking, you've just answered it perfectly - thanks! Frickeg (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that the "Critically endangered" and "Data deficient" outputs need to be capitalised, as this is what the IUCN does (and what we do for Near Threatened and Least Concern). DD should probably be linked as well. And should there be categories for DD, Conservation Dependent and Not evaluated? Also (at the risk of sounding very nitpicky), the "extinct in the wild" result should really be linked to Extinct in the Wild. Frickeg (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done the capitalisation and linking of Data Deficient and Extinct in the Wild. The categories stuff needs to be discussed. My two cents: I don't think there should be a category for "not evaluated", but the others are fine. Hesperian 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, the previous stuff about the graphics - I think that the graphic for DD already exists here. Is it possible to include this (Pengo hasn't yet responded, but as I said, I think he's already done the graphic). Frickeg (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
EW now links to Extinction in the Wild :) ... Frickeg (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Crikey! Fixed now. The IUCN2.3 case was okay, it was just the IUCN3.1 one I kludged. Hesperian 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Great work. And I'm so glad those poor Data Deficient species get a graphic - looks great. Frickeg (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any discussion on the DD graphic, so if anyone is unhappy about it, it will have to come out again pending discussion. Hesperian 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a question above (Data Deficient status) by me, but it received no responses apart from someone pointing out that there was no category either. Frickeg (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (Un-indent). So, by following a conversation here from the WP:MAMMAl talk page I finally sort of get to the bottom of what has happened to all of the status graphics on the bird articles into plain text lately. Although by "get to the bottom" I mean, "I think someone played with the code and everything changed, but damned if I know how". Could someone kindly please explain, in English, what we have to do to get the graphics back for the 10,000 odd bird species articles that no longer have it? Thank you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it's very simple. In each taxobox there is a parameter called "status_system". Usually, it's placed under the "status" parameter. Into it, you put the system that has been used for the classification. For example, if the species was assessed using IUCN version 3.1, you put status_system = iucn3.1. This will restore the graphic. The reason this change occurred was that some taxoboxes were using different classifications (like EPA) for various reasons, but without the status_system it would use the IUCN graphic. It also lets us distinguish between IUCN 2.3 (when the Lower Risk category for Conservation Dependent, Near Threatened and Least Concern was in place) and IUCN 3.1, the current usage. Does that help? (It doesn't actually take all that long. I've already done all the mammals up to the end of the primates.) Frickeg (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The new code categorises into Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter. Initially this was listed on articles, which I preferred, but someone made it a HIDDENCAT. It should be fairly trivial to pull the bird articles out of that, e.g. using WP:CATSCAN.Hesperian 04:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems an convoluted way to solve a fairly minor problem. There can't be that many articles not using the IUCN system (certainly no bird articles that I am aware of), wouldn't it have been simpler just to flag them and have them not display it rather than messing up all the articles. I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through thousands of articles doing this (as I don't use tools to help my editing) . Is there a bot that can fix this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There probably is, but there's the problem that it wouldn't know whether a species marked "VU", for example, would be IUCN 2.3 or IUCN 3.1, or something else entirely. Once they're all done (and I confidently predict that the vast majority will be done in under six months), it will be a helpful reminder to editors who may forget that the "status_system" parameter is required. Frickeg (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Unless you're checking every single entry, how are we supposed to do any better? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am indeed checking every single entry. It's a menial task that will have to be done. Frickeg (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be simpler to have a bot just re-add every single status for ever species once the new list comes out in May? And then overwrite any non-standard status. Because you aren't going to find many volunteers to check ever single one of the thousands upon thousands of articles that would need checking, and those that do will burn out from the sheer mind crushing boredom of the task. I sure as hell have more important things to do. In the past User:Beastie Bot added the status to every taxobox without status, simply have it add the new status to every single article, and flag on the talk page if it has changed anything. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That would work fine for birds, but many mammals still use the old 2.3 system.Frickeg (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And a bot capable of selecting the information "species = vulnerable" from the IUCN site would be incapable of acquiring and adding the system information because...? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not following your argument, SS. If a bot can do it, get a bot to do it. There's still nothing wrong with Frickeg doing it by hand if s/he wants to. Hesperian 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent)I'm trying to save Frickeg the effort - in fact, I'm trying to suggest that rather than changing the taxobox in such a way that it creates hours of work for everyone to fix, we ask the bot creating people nicely to do this. Okay, so maybe this fix needed to happen, but slow down a bit and lets see if we can't work smarter rather than harder. That is all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, the bot will work fine when the new bird one comes out, but the mammals are still split into 2.3 and 3.1, and it's important to distinguish these. I honestly don't mind doing them. Frickeg (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That said, if there is a way that a bot can do that, then obviously it would be useless me wandering around doing them when a bot could. I just don't think that any bots could do the mammal ones, but I'm perfectly willing to be contradicted. Frickeg (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it is very simple in principal, (but I don't code). If Beastie Bot can search the IUCN database and find that Red List Category & Criteria: = LR/nt for a species (for example [3]) and add that to the parameter Status, it is no more difficult for it to also find that the version = ver 2.3 (1994), and add that to the next parameter status_system. All Beastie Bot would have to do is extract two bits of info instead of one. can't think of any showstoppers, so we could ask Pengo for help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Beastie Bot can do it already, and I'll get onto it. I've got a bit of time now and another run is long overdue. Though I might end up waiting for the 2008 red list now that it's so close. I actually deliberately left off the status_system field last round (unless it was really needed), and relied on 3.1 as being the default (bad move). —Pengo 00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Pengo! I agree that waiting for the new list may be the way forward. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Data Deficient

I left out a symbol for DD when I was making them, because it seemed too difficult to convey any useful information. (Likewise I originally left off a graphic for "Extinct", as conservation codes mean little in the context of an extinct species). All the same, User:Brodo saw the gap, and made this this symbol which has recently been adopted:

1. Data Deficient

I'd like to suggest, if we must have a symbol, to use this instead:

2. Data Deficient

It's just a blank template, to show that no status has been chosen. It shows the possible range of conservation statuses, rather than a symbol for a symbol's sake. The third option is to just have text, without any symbol. (as it was before) But people seem to expect a graphic in that spot now. So..

Thoughts? —Pengo 00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a graphic is needed. Before there was a graphic, even though I knew better, it always gave the impression that DD wasn't really a valid category (a bit like NE - there definitely shouldn't be a graphic for that). I also agree that the blank template is probably a better move for the DD graphic, as it emphasises its place within the IUCN categorising scheme. Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No objection from me. Hesperian 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly prefer that the graphic be brought back. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody, I'm not sure what you're talking about. If any graphics have disappeared, it is because the status was ambiguous and no status_system has been specified. Add a status_system parameter to your taxobox, and your graphic will reappear. Hesperian 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I was confused. I noticed that the graphic had disappeared from a large number of Taxoboxes in articles (namely Ladoga Seal) and I thought someone had removed it from the template. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a code change somewhat related to this discussion (and discussed in a section further up this page) caused the graphic to disappear from a great many articles. Currently Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter contains about 33,000 pages, which is about ten times what I had anticipated. It had to be done though, because articles on biota that are endangered under some other system, were being served an IUCN graphic, which was not right. Hesperian 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I've changed the graphic per this discussion. Hesperian 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unknown status systems

I just added code to handle status systems that the taxobox doesn't know about. This was prompted by me adding "| status_system = Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW)" to Alexfloydia, and finding that this results in an empty conservation status box. This new version of the taxobox outputs the contents of the status_system parameter in full, resulting, in this case, in

Endangered (Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW))

Hesperian 05:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

|status=fossil and invalid conservation status

Is there a better way to deal with |status=fossil? The way it displays now is informative (see Amoeboceras for an example), and is helpful since a lot of the taxoboxes with this element don't have the recommended fossil_range= element, but could it be keyed to a different category than Category:Invalid conservation status, or set up to display in a way that isn't tied to IUCN conservation status (maybe a bot swaps it for something else?)? I brought this up earlier at Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage#Category:Invalid conservation status, but ran out of ideas. J. Spencer (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I favour removing Category:Invalid conservation status from this case; "Fossil" is a perfectly valid conservation status, albeit not under any particular status system.
On a related note, I wonder if it would be possible/advisable to change "fossil_range" to something else indicating temporal range, rather than evidence for temporal range. For example, if there is scientific consensus that jellyfish has been around since the Precambrian, but no fossils going back that far, it would seem appropriate to put "Precambrian–present" in the taxobox, only not under the heading "Fossil range".
Hesperian 23:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If "Fossil" is not a category under any status system, doesn't that make it's use original research? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No. A scientific publication may say that it is a fossil, without placing it in a formal status system. Hesperian 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting point; I don't see the discontinuity much in my area, since most fossil reptiles have poor representation outside of fossils, with ghost lineages being a matter of taste and most recent phylogeny. Would it be appropriate to have both |temporal_range= X as well as |fossil_range=Y for something like jellyfish or what-have-you?
No, I think that needs to go in the text - at least that's how I have dealt with such cases: put the actual time range of fossils in the taxobox, and discuss in the article's evolution section or paragraph that there has to be a ghost record because e.g. the sister group is known from fossils some umpteen years older.
But it might be possible to tweak the displaying of the | fossil_range info so that it goes below conservation status and do away with the "(N/A)" bit? So it makes entirely fossil taxa's boxes look prettier, but also would work with living taxa. Would have to be tried out to see how it looks. 13:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed "N/A (fossil)" to "Fossil", and removed the fossils from Category:Invalid conservation status (it might take a while for that category to empty). The other matter can stay as it is unless there is more interest in addressing it. Moving the fossil range argument requires more discussion too. Finally, I was wondering for what reason we have both "Fossil" and "Prehistoric" statuses; are these not equivalent? Hesperian 13:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not all fossils are prehistoric. Take the Lake Mackay hare-wallaby, for instance. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a skull taken from a freshly killed animal counts as a fossil; if it did, then every type specimen would be a fossil, and we would probably have to call all our taxa fossils. But I'll grant that there are some horribly ambiguous cases. The term Fossil can mean either a taxon known only from preserved organic remains or the remains themselves. In this context we may assume the former meaning, but we still have to deal with the ambiguity implicit in known. Should we call a taxon a fossil if it is known only from fossil remains and the oral tradition of an indigenous people? How about if there are plenty of documented sightings, but specimen collections are restricted to fossils? The more I think about it, the more I think that our fossil taxoboxes comprise a nebulous collection of prehistoric taxa mixed together with a sprinkling for poorly known recently extinct taxa. I am inclined to think that we should eliminate the ambiguity by converting each and every fossil taxobox into an extinct or prehistoric taxobox, then removing the fossil option altogether.
Hesperian 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As a rule-of-thumb, a fossil is >95% (or so) rock. See also subfossil.
  • For living taxa, the rossil range must obviously end in "Recent". Except if there is no recent fossil record, which is seldom the case.
  • I use "Prehistoric" if the (sub)fossil record proves extinction between ~40.000 BC and 1500 AD.
  • I have not had any problems with the fossil_range param. It is sleek and easy to use. You need good data to put into it of course... the trick may be to mentally decouple the 2 params (fossil range & fossil status). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

default image width

Is the default taxobox image width too small? The default image width is even smaller than the width of the taxobox itself; see Chalcopsitta. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The default image width is whatever you have set as your default image width. Hesperian 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
... hence the image on Chalcopsitta looks pretty darn big to me. If you hardcode the image width to something bigger for you, I bet London to a brick you'll make it smaller for me. Which is why we defer to the default. Hesperian 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Range map captions

Recently I have started adding a legend to the map caption, normally for maps which use two or more range colors. The problem is that the legend template normally aligns itself to the left, while the taxobox wants to align the caption to the center. This is fine if there is only one legend box, but where maps have several the center alignment makes things ugly (example). The temporary solution I'm using at the moment is to override the taxobox style with CSS and align things to the left (as in Senegal Bushbaby), but this is impractical over the long run. I'm wondering what others think: we can fix the taxobox or stop putting legends in the map caption altogether.--Mad Max (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete templates now gone

Yesterday and today I cleaned up the last remaining mainspace transclusion of the old status system templates (e.g. {{StatusEndangered}}) and deleted them. I didn't fix any transclusions in user space, so if I've killed the article in your sandbox, I apologise... but Jeez, man, you need to get with the program! I've removed what obsolete documentation I could find in the project namespace, but can't guarantee I got it all. Hesperian 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Hello to any wikipedians that can answer my question. I have the Red Panda page on my watchlist as it receives a surprising (to me anyway) amount of vandalism. Today I noticed that these marks ;"| next to the name in the taxobox and next to the words "Scientific classification" farther down in the box. They had not been there before but when I go into edit they are not there to be removed. My next thought was that someone had messed with the taxobox template but as this page is protected that seems unlikely. I don't edit much on animal pages so maybe these are supposed to be there but if they aren't and if any of you can fix this it will be much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You can add the page to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you like. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix Bob. I just didn't go back far enough in the edit history which was naughty of me. Thanks also for the suggestion. I don't know that it gets enough vandalism on a daily basis to qualify for protection and it seems to be on enough editors watchlists that any vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly, but, I will keep RFP in mind. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request: Type_locality field, if it is not too much to ask, in taxobox

The missing field in the taxobox is type_locality. Would it be possible to implement this addition?--Wloveral (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think that's a worthy and appropriate addition. Do we not already have it? --Aranae (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. How about type_type as well? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Type_type would involve too many options, and where these are non-standard (iconotype, hapantotype, fossil, impression, tissue sample, microscopic preparation, colony, culture, "work of an animal" or barcode) they will have to be explained in the text anyway. Type locality is easy to deal with, by comparison, and helps to resolve which populations should remain as the nominative subspecies.--Wloveral (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Humorous entries

Should humorous/fictional animals use the taxobox, like Stone louse? bogdan (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the information in the taxobox is all part of Loriot's corpus of work, the taxobox could be taken as a parody in the spirit of the original work (as well as assembling the parody classification in one place). But it should probably be referenced, and any parts of it that are original research should be removed. My suspicion is that little of the taxobox would remain if the OR were removed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was browsing species articles in other languages. I ran into a species in french and I really like the idea of adding the links to commons and species inside the taxobox (instead of using {{Commons}} or {{Wikispecies}}. Such change will bring a lot of advantages. First, people no longer have to scroll all the way down the bottom of the page to click on the links to other projects. Second, it presents to people and letting them know that they can find more information or images by going to other projects. And third, it promotes interproject relations. I think it will be a great addition to add these links into the taxobox. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Advantages 2 and 3 are already facilitated by {{Commons}} etc, so your proposal boils down to "less scrolling". I think the taxobox is already too cluttered. Hesperian 05:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also disagree--the taxobox isn't supposed to be a mini-article summary. It's primarily for taxonomy. Even putting things like fossil range and conservation status in there seems like a bit of a stretch. Adding links to outside projects would be overkill. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at it this way. People no longer need to tag articles with {{Commons}} or {{Wikispecies}} at the bottom of the page if taxobox is built in with these functions. Building a template is all about saving time on repeated formats and materials. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
But they would still need to provide wikispecies and commons arguments to the taxobox template. Where's the time savings? And just how important is saving a few seconds of editor time anyhow? Hesperian 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possibel to add links to articles on the same subject on other wikimedia-projects in the same way as links to other language editions. This means added at the bottom when editing but put on the left navigation bar when visualised? --Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You do have a good point there. But if those interprojects have multiple pages on the topic in different languages, how will it be linked? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiCommons and WikiSpecies are monolingual and don't pose any problem. For other WikiProjects one could keep to only the wikiprojects in the same language. --Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What makes sense to me (of the options I've seen so far), is putting them in the external links section (using {{Commons-inline}} instead of {{Commons}} works well in this context). I don't see it as the kind of "facts at a glance" information which is suitable to an infobox (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)). I could imagine a link in the left navigation bar (as for languages), but that does seem like a big change to existing practice. Kingdon (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms_ref?

Like status_ref. Would be highly useful for taxa where synonymy lists exists (e.g. many plants, arthropods etc), because there the synonymy section can (and ought to) be referenced as a whole. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you not specify a reference as part of the "Synonyms" parameter?
{{taxobox
|regnum=[[animal]]ia
|synonyms = 
*metazoa <ref>Reference somewhere</ref>
*creatures <ref>Another reference</ref>
}}

Taxobox/Archive 11
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Animalia
Synonyms

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that all the time (although more often for subdivisions than for synonyms). The difference with status_ref is that status doesn't provide another parameter where they could go, unless I'm missing something. Kingdon (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes of course, But why , in synonym-rich taxa for which you have a single authoritative source, cite that over and over? It does not improve readability of the actual footnote... ;-)
I found that <br />eaking after the last synonym and just putting the ref below can do the job. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I've been burned too often by trying to sort out articles which have a long list of completely unreferenced species names. The most recent project, Eupatorium, still has a bunch where I have been unable to narrow them down to a continent, or figure out how to handle hybrids, synonyms, typos, etc. I'll agree that citing every entry might be an overreaction, but I'm not sure I'm completely won over to the citations at the end (due to things like later editors adding entries and not updating the refs). Kingdon (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In most articles I edit, the status reference is used as in-rext source more or less extensively. Together with the status_system param, there is simply no need for the status_ref param at all in such cases. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

req. new parameter

Requesting a parameter called "size," to indicate the approximate order of magnitude of the size of a typical adult member of a species. Bwrs (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. The taxobox should be restricted to taxonomic information. Another infobox may be in order for this type of information, but it doesn't belong in a taxobox. --Aranae (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea colour does not show up

{{editprotected}}

When Archaea is set in the field domain it does not color the box since the word "domain" is not checked for in the Template:Taxobox color. --Kupirijo (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done: Please be more specific about the change you want made. If you need help I'd be happy to offer it, but I'm a bit out of my depth here. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When the following code shows up in Template:Taxobox 

{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

The argument {{{domain}}} should be showing up. --Kupirijo (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DjVu pages cannot be used as taxobox images

It is impossible to put this image into a taxobox.

DjVu is a file format for multi-page documents. Wikimedia supports it. You can display a particular page by using the page argument to the image. e.g. the image on the right was displayed using "[[Image:Appendix to the first twenty-three volumes of Edwards's Botanical Register.djvu|page=135|thumb|It is impossible to put this image into a taxobox.]]" It is not currently possible to pass a page parameter to the taxobox image, so there is no way to put this image into the taxobox. Who wants to fix it? Hesperian 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a work-around for this. Use this format for the image parameter:

Taxobox/Archive 11
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Plantae

Appendix to the first twenty-three volumes of Edwards's Botanical Register.djvu{{!}}page=135

example (code below; render to the right): 

{{taxobox
|regnum=[[Plant]]ae
|image=Appendix to the first twenty-three volumes of Edwards's Botanical Register.djvu{{!}}page=135
}}

--bluemask (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Hesperian 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Year of publication

May I suyggest that we add the year of publication of the taxon? Sometimes the author is not sifficient, as some have described a species more than once. TeunSpaans (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This have been proposed many times. We follow the relevant nomenclatural rules; i.e. ICZN for animals, ICBN for plants and most other kingdoms. The former allows dates, the latter does not. The consensus is that if we add years to ICBN author citations, we look like idiots who don't understand nomenclature. Hesperian 04:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This was very controversial, when discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive15#Poll: Should.2FMay a date be included in the taxobox authority.3F I believe a big part of the problem is that including just a date, as opposed to a full citation, opens up a can of worms (and, at least for plants, seems to be little done). Kingdon (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it is that the author citation of an ICZN organism includes the date. It is not unusual to include in in animal taxoboxen: Pika, American Pika, Muskrat, Northern Mockingbird, Red harvester ant, Monarch (butterfly), Portuguese Man o' War (100% of my ad-hoc sample). I would argue that animal authorities without dates are deficient and in need of correction.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
From the point of view of adding and extracting metadata (including the under-development 'Species' microformat, already deployed in part in taxobox), it would be better to have two fields; thereby increasing data granularity, which is A Good Thing™. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Although from the standpoint of the data, it's granular, from the standpoint of the code, it's atomic. An analogy is the binomial; the epithet is a separate data item, but in display, "Genus: Bos, epithet: taurus" will always seem uneducated. If the taxobox were to display a granular author and year in a single line ("Mabbett, 1883"), both needs would be served.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
AIUI, since we already know the set of rules in use in a particular instance of the taxobox (needed to determine the colour used), it should be possible to code the template such that a date field cannot be displayed when inappropriate. Though of course it would be much better if the different ruling bodies in taxonomy could agree one common standard! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Alas, the heuristic fails in much of the eukaryotes outside of the animals, plants, and fungi, since species might have been described under either the ICZN or the ICBN. There are even animal names for chlorophytes (my invertebrate zoology text, back in the late Pleistocene, included many chlorophytes among the flagellated protozoa).
On the other hand, something like:
| binomial_authority = 
| binomial_authority_year_ICZN =
if displayed comma-separated on a single line, would seem to solve the issue. Although it is manual, it would remind editors of zoological articles to include the year, and authors of other articles not to. Current articles that have both grains in the binomial_authority field would need to be corrected (as they would in any system), but a bot could perhaps do that, and they would display properly even uncorrected.
WRT unifying the codes, folks have been talking about that for decades, and they don't seem much closer to unification.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox ranks in wrong order?

This is wrong isn't it?
Scientific classification
Superdivision:
Superdivisio
Superphylum:
Superphylum
Division:
Divisio
Phylum:
Phylum
Subdivision:
Subdivisio
Subphylum:
Subphylum

This order is wrong, isn't it? Shouldn't it be [superdivision, division, subdivision, superphylum, phylum, subphylum]? Hesperian 01:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Division and phylum refer to the same rank; one is used for plants, the other for animals. They will never be used in the same taxobox, and their order in the taxobox is irrelevant. The current order makes sense if you consider "division" and "phylum" to be synonyms. (There is also a "division" rank in zoology, but it is much lower than phylum, and has its own taxobox parameter ""zoodivisio".) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I should have known that. :-( Thanks. Hesperian 12:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup, division and phylum are synonymous (for plants, you can use either term according to section 3.1 of the Vienna code). Kingdon (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone point me at a Wikipeida page (or other easily-read document) which lists the various ranks, used for each kingdom, please? Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
-> Taxonomic rank Hesperian 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I should have pointed myself at it before starting this thread. (Your sig is way too long.) Hesperian 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Usually unranked_<anything> has a higher rank than <anything>, but unranked_divisio has a lower rank than <divisio>. Is there any special reason for this? Couild this be reordered w/o making big trouble? Ernsts (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Size

{{editprotected}}I request the image size be changed to around 300px wide. Muhammad(talk) 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Declined. You can set your own preferred default thumb size in Special:Preferences. Hesperian 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Escherichia coli

Scientific classification
Domain: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Escherichia
Species: E. coli
Binomial name
Escherichia coli
(Migula 1895)
Castellani and Chalmers 1919
Databases
General info: data and browser
Genome project: lists
Annotation data: strain MG1655
Genome browser: strain MG1655

{{editprotected}}I request to add an section about link to official database. I write code and example about it. For this project, it could be important to create two prefix (interwiki prefix) about ncbi site and gbrowse.org.

This would be a significant new feature. It needs to be discussed before anyone edits it in. Can you give an example of how a taxobox might use it? Hesperian 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You will find info about 4 field that I think that they could be of utility. I could be at your beck and call to insert datae. 5 November 2008 22:34:17 (UTC)

I've transcluded your example at right, for ease of reference. Personally, I'm opposed to this. I prefer those links to be outside the scope of the taxobox. They would be better in an external links section.

By the way, your code is broken; it needs another |}. On this page I have added it manually.

Hesperian 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now it is correct. Well, I think that link about genome project or genome browser is important like distribution or binomial name. So, I think that field about general and project, it is important and of utility like other taxobox information.

Bilardi 5 November 2008 23:10:41 (UTC)


Other method it could be to have max 4 title: General info, Genome project, Genome browser, Official Model Organism Database (Official MOD or Annotation data). Each title is linked directly to official web site about precise database. So, in Databases section, we have got max 4 lines, each line with one link: General info, Genome project, Genome browser and Annotation data. It is important to look that Escherichia coli is extreme example because there is more official web sites and not one like Arabidopsis thaliana or Dictyostelium discoideum that they are one official web site, one genome project, one genome browser.

Bilardi 6 November 2008 13:49:56 (UTC)

I think links like this are better placed in the 'external links' section. A template could be used there. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Syntax error ;-|

There is a syntax error leading to excess pipes and semicolons in virus infoboxes; see for example Yellow fever. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This occurs when the taxobox can't pick a colour, because it lacks an entry for all of the following ranks: regnum, virus_group, unranked_phylum, phylum. Is it possible to add any of these to that taxobox? This should probably be fixed anyhow, if only in the name of robustness. Hesperian 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added virus_group to a few articles (based on the family). In terms of whether this or "color=violet" is the best fix, I'd gladly defer to the opinions of someone who knows more about virus classification than me, though. Would be nice if the template gave a more useful error or some such, of course. Kingdon (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
color=#{{taxobox colour|[[virus]]}} is the most robust way of specifying the color, although a better fix would be to specify a virus_family, even if this just means placing a hidden comment in the field. Including an error message would increase the size of the template code somewhat unnecessarily (thus increasing page load times). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed shocking lack of parameters in doc

21-Nov-2008: I have added a small box of minimal parameters to avoid the utter, total shock of seeing a template "doc" page with absolutlely nothing but a bunch of rambling text: with nothing about the parameters to be used. Okay, it can be difficult to balance giving readers some basic details about parameters, then expand into a fuller discussion of over 135 total parameters. However, having nothing but a ton of tangent text on the doc page was quite a shock. It really looked like some novice documentation that forgot to list the parameters. The overall result was an age-old "shaggy dog story": reading about "how simple" it is, and reading about "Making changes" and reading about "colors"...yada-yada, but where are the friggin' parameters??? It is a good idea to show the users, early on, what they use: the parameters. So, a simple method (used on many template doc pages) is to show a small box, then lead them to "See full list" for more. That's how simple it is. One of the most important issues for the writers is to show them "image_size" (or "image_width" in this case) or any other optional parameter appearing in many situations. Think about the doc-subpage from the reader's viewpoint: for what information they most need to see, early. I think that will help keep it simple for everyone. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good change to me; thanks. Kingdon (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

image_width bug

Not sure if this has been mentioned before (if it has ignore me) but if you have the imadge_with parameter in the taxobox but don't have a value it messes up the taxobox image like so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; it's fixed now. Hesperian 22:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Should have brought that up earlier. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Auto-italicisation of page name

I want to make sure readers of this page are aware of a request to involve Template talk:Taxobox name in automatic italicisation of page names where it's recommended by the MOS. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Parameter name request

Hesperian,

This template seems to be your bailiwick at the momement . . .

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requested templates#Taxobox:

  • I could do this, but not for some time, and you are very active here recently anyway.
  • Also, given the level of use of this template, how much concensus, if any would be necessary? Such an addition would not impact any existing transclusions at all.
  • There are also some other simplifications which I would make at the same time, to dramatically simplify the processing of all the {{#switch: |values}}.

Cheers Peet Ern (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much point doing "image caption" if we're not also going to do "image width", "range map", "range map width", "range map caption", "status system", "status text", "status ref", "fossil range", "virus group", "unranked [rank]", "[rank] authority", "unranked [rank] authority", "type species", "subdivision ranks", etc. It would be a substantial edit, it could take a while to get it right, and I'm not convinced it is worth the effort.
What do people think? Should we support parameters that contain spaces in place of underscores e.g allow both "|range map=" and "|range_map="?
Hesperian 03:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the approach I would use would be as per User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Taxobox and User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Taxobox/main (both of which are hacks to various degrees at the moment). Peet Ern (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I almost always copy/paste rather than write the taxobox from memory, so I wouldn't find any advantage.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
At least as a general rule, I prefer for there to be one way to do things. Providing different ways potentially raises like "does image caption mean the same as image_caption?". Also, I was told that we couldn't have good error handling because it would slow down the template, so I'd be a bit dismayed if we slowed it down for something much less worthwhile (in my opinion, of course). So unless there is some really clear convention about how parameters should be named, I'd say stick with the status quo. Kingdon (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Taxobox authority}}

Hi, all. I noticed a recently created article using this template. It has some transclusions, but isn't used extensively. Since it's an older template, is it possible that it's use had been deprecated by updates to the Taxobox template but its use hasn't been discontinued? If not, what's the rationale for its use? I'd be willing to do the grunt work to alter the transclusions to the appropriate authority so we can delete it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be useful there there are multiple authorities to list, such as on California Condor. Why should it be deleted? (There are just over 100 articles using it, BTW) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the pages I've been looking at, there's only been one authority. And the multiple authority use doesn't make sense to me when <small>Authority, date</small> does the same thing with fewer characters and is already spelled out in the taxobox usage guidelines. Besides, it gives the false impression that all authorities are written the same way when there are differences between zoological and botanical authorities. It just seems old, outdated, and not useful to me. Rkitko (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's my understanding that templates are to be used in preference to inline mark-up. If so, perhaps the template in question needs to be improved to take account of the issues you raise? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspect this is the reason. There's a wikiproject out there somewhere to get rid of small tags, presumably in favor of templates like this. I don't remember where it is, though. Kingdon (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I remember that. Links are the following:
I had questions about that to and posted on the discussion. Is this small style issue an MOS issue or is it just this WikiProject? Is there broader consensus to not use the html tag? Why is it not recommended? I feel like use of {{Taxobox authority}} is just overtemplatification or complexity for complexity's sake. I'm not opposed to its use, just question the necessity and utility of such a template. --Rkitko (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(End archive: topics of 2009 moved to Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_12)

  1. ^ Reference somewhere
  2. ^ Another reference
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_11&oldid=1086545096"