Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Should taxoboxes be used for breeds, cultivar or varietals?

Ramisco, Alexandrouli, Heroldrebe, Frappato have been tagged with {{missing-taxobox}}, after a VERY quick check I cannot find any breeds, cultivar or varietals that have taxoboxes. I think it is correct not to use taxoboxes on breeds or cultivars, is there agreement on this?? Can I take away the missing taxobox templates? Can we update the doc page to describe this?? --Stefan ^talk 04:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Stefan asked this question here because we discuss it in the Wine project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Template:Taxobox/doc. Tomas e (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles that are not described taxa should not get a taxobox. Cultivars should use the {{Infobox Cultivar}}. I'm not sure about breeds or varietals (not to be confused with variety (botany)). Rkitko ^(talk) 13:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that breeds and cultivars should not use Taxoboxes. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Extinction date code broken?

Or has it changed? "extinct = [year]" does not show anymore. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also noticed this problem. Can it be fixed? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter

Over the past few weeks, I have spent some time going through the articles listed in Cat:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter, and adding the parameter wherever possible. However, there are still over 800 articles in that category (down from 1100–1200), most of which fall into one of two classes. They strike me as being quite different to an article which uses a status of "CR" (for instance), but fails to include the "status_system = IUCN3.1", and I wonder if they should be treated differently. They are:

1. Articles using "Secure" as a conservation status
2. Articles using "Extinct" (or "EX") as a status

The first type is easier to consider; there is no system in which "secure" is a category. The second is harder; EX does exist as an IUCN code, but the vast majority of articles using it are not about IUCN-listed taxa. A third group, articles using "LC" despite no IUCN entry, is straightforward: the status should be removed. I am not sure what the best approach is for the others, or even if it's a problem, but I'd like to propose some options (in order of severity):

1. Leave them all as they are to be dealt with in due course.
2. Leave the display of "Secure" and "Extinct" in the taxobox, but stop those cases from being listed in Cat:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter (allowing us to find more easily those articles which should have a status_system added, rather than those that should have the status removed).
3. Alter the template, so that "status = Secure" and "Status = Extinct" don't produce any visible content (and don't list the articles in the cleanup category). This wouldn't affect "status = EX" when used with a valid status_system.
4. Purge all inappropriate status systems from the encyclopaedia, probably manually.

I think I prefer option 2 or 3, but I can see arguments in favour of each approach. Even if we carry out option 4, option 3 may be a useful step in the interim, perhaps leaving the hidden category in place. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is (a) "Extinct" is a valid status even when no status system is given, so the maintenance category should not be invoked in this case; (b) "Secure" is incorrect unless the taxon has actually been assessed as Secure under some status system. For some unknown reason, vast numbers of articles use "|status=Secure" to indicate the absence of any information on conservation status. This is wrong. These should be removed. Hesperian 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have stopped the category from being invoked for status = EX with no status_system. It looks like I did it correctly, but if someone would check, that would be a weight off my mind. There were 799 articles in the category before I made the change, by the way. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Hesperian 10:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the "Extinct" status from the perspective of someone who uses it (often for species not mentioned by IUCN), it would be really helpful if someone would add the "|extinct=" parameter defined on the documentation page. That would allow for the "status" and extinction date to display, along with a possible reference for the date... and hopefully discourage random editors from throwing in the IUCN status because they think the original editor forgot. Just my $0.02... – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is there but I think it is only invoked if |status=Extinct is in there too. Hesperian 10:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the code and couldn't find it. (Although, admittedly, it is a fairly big and complex template so I may have missed it.) And I can say from experience that it does not work when |status=Extinct is invoked. See: Hadropithecus, Babakotia and Mesopropithecus — all articles I just wrote. If I'm doing something wrong, let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's in {{Taxobox/species}}; I can see the code:

  | ex = [[file:Status iucn3.1 EX.svg|frameless|link=|alt=]]<br />[[Extinction|Extinct]] {{#if:{{{extinct|}}}|&nbsp;({{{extinct}}}) }} [[Category:IUCN Red List extinct species]]

, but I couldn't say why no output is produced (which is clearly the case).

Is it possible that {{Taxobox}} isn't passing the "extinct" argument to {{Taxobox/species}}? Might changing

{{taxobox/species|{{{status_system|}}}|{{{status|}}}|{{{status_ref|}}} }}

to

{{taxobox/species|{{{status_system|}}}|{{{status|}}}|{{{status_ref|}}}|{{{extinct|}}} }}

do the job? I'm a long way from being expert in template syntax, but that looks like a likely suspect. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the code. Hopefully someone can get around to fixing this. However (assuming I read the code right), I'm not sure if I want the IUCN extinct category or the IUCN extinct graphic added if I use the "|extinct=" paramater. I just want the date or date range displayed. In the cases I mentioned above, they are not listed under IUCN, so all that's appropriate for these subfossil species (which died out in the 500 to 2000 years) is a space in the Taxobox saying "Extinct" and the date range for their extinction. That's all I want. Save the IUCN stuff for people who use the "|status_system=" parameter, please. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The graphic is there because that is the IUCN2.3 case. If you look through the code you'll find other status system cases. In all cases the extinct parameter is handled correctly. Thin includes the case where no status system is given, in which case no graphic is shown. The problem is as Stemonitis has guessed: the extinct parameter simply is not being passed to the /species subroutine. I'll see what I can do. Hesperian 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That fixed it! Thanks for making the change. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Move lower or collapse by default the section 'conservation status' for animals, if the status is not threatened

For an example see Fennec_Fox. On that page, the first section after the image is the conservation status section. However, it offers very little information to warrant its prime position. Most animals are not threatened, and when reading an article on an animal people will assume so, it would only be information if broke that assumption. Therefore I suggest either conditionally moving the section down lower or collapsing it. Ljcrabs (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I don't like that idea.

I think "Least Concern" and "Stable" conservation status are horribly overused in taxoboxes. As Ljcrabs says, the conservation status of a non-threatened species is usually of very little interest, and it is silly to yield to it such prime real estate. But the solution is not to fiddle this template; the solution is to remove the conservation status in articles where doing so would improve the article.[1] Hesperian 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case how could you would you know an animal was non-threatened when it could be that simply no one had added the conservation status yet? Ljcrabs (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is text running alongside the taxobox, no?

It annoys me when people refactor their text after it has been responded to. It falsifies the discussion by misrepresenting what has been replied to. For this reason I have restored the thread as it was when I responded to it.

Hesperian 13:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the image for "Least Concern" takes up too much screen real estate. However, I don't like the ideas of hide/show, or moving it, when we could just get rid of the graphic for Least Concern, and keep the text. It'd take up little more room than a "hide/show" button, and avoid making readers needless click, and avoid frustrating those who are accustomed to its position (Disclosure: I made the conservation status graphics).

And while we're at it, I do not think there should be an graphic for "Extinct" species. It's not threatened any more: It's extinct. You don't need a map to know where "extinct" exists on the spectrum of threatened species, because it's not threatened, it's extinct, and it will always be extinct. It's not going to become any more or less endangered any more than Michael Jackson is going to become more or less unwell. If the reader doesn't understand what extinct means, this chart isn't going to shed any new light. The only reason there's a graphic for extinct there at the moment is because people kept thinking the image was missing from the template, and helpfully added it "back in". But it was quite deliberately left out. (Sorry if I sound like John Cleese in the parrot sketch). The reasons for having the conservation status graphic is to show, at a glace, how endangered a species is considered within the context of the system which measures it. When it comes to an extinct species like the thylacine or dodo, the other categories ("Endangered", etc) do not provide any useful context for the reader, so why show this graphic? Do people really think it's needed?

In summary, I'm fine with Least Concern and Extinct species losing the graphic device from the taxobox. Or even having "Least Concern" being removed from the taxobox entirely if it's still mentioned in the article. —Pengo 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I like the lc and EX categories in the box. Most species aren't lc - most species are unassessed or DD. If they have been assessed, I think that's just as useful as any other info. I'd say leave it where it is and as it is. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that removing EX and LC from the box wouldn't change the size (as in height) of the box, only the width. Guettarda (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would personally prefer to omit the image for the IUCN conservation status; this would decrease the amount of clutter. I dislike the idea of collapsing for any part of the taxobox: I don't want to add another click before I can access important information, and if you don't want to read it, just don't read it. Ucucha 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the conservation status images; I think it helps readers who might not be familiar with the IUCN scale situate a particular conservation status in the overall scheme of things. I don't have a problem with Least Concern either; for me the fact that an organism is not threatened is just as relevant a piece of information as if it was. Research goes into determining whether a species is LC; it's not a "default" category by any means. -- Yzx (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it's confusing for readers familiar with how WP generally treats images to have one like the conservation status image that is not linked to anything. (For example, the image for "least concern" should be linked to File:Status iucn3.1 LC.svg.) I couldn't tell by scanning the source code whether something special was done to prevent the linking, but if so, it should be undone. - dcljr (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. Ucucha 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

More curious conservation status behaviour

Another oddity of the way that {{Taxobox}} handles conservation statuses (that I've just come across at Nepenthes khasiana) is that the CITES text is only produced when the status_system is not set to "CITES":

{{Taxobox/species | | CITES_A1}}

produces: "CITES Appendix I" / "Threatened with extinction"

, while

{{Taxobox/species | CITES | CITES_A1}}

defaults to: "CITES_A1 (CITES)"

I guess the only way to deal with that is to copy the output from the null case to the "status_system = CITES" case, and add Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter to the null case, although it seems a shame to invoke a cleanup category to a situation where an editor has used the only applicable solution. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I've done. If I've screwed something up, please feel free to revert {{Taxobox/species}} (or ask me to do so). --Stemonitis (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Long extinct species

Is there a standard approach for long extinct species? I notice that Neanderthal has a conservation status of extinct, which seems an odd way to put it. Tyrannosaurus has a fossil range documented, which seems more sensible.

Mammoth contains both the coservation status and the fossil range. This species also highlights one of the problems of talking about the fossil range – I’m sure that some of the later examples of mammoth bones are new enough not to have fossilised.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When a species is known only from fossils, we tend to use status=Fossil rather than status=Extinct. Hesperian 22:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, and remember that the fossil range parameter takes two ranges-- one range is the fossil range, and the other is the estimated range. When using the fossil range parameter, make sure you cite the source as well. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a consensus was reached some time ago to not use status=Fossil at all, although I don't remember exactly where or when the discussion took place. mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It creates the text "Conservation status: Fossil", which is silly. Ucucha 11:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To even talk about conservation status for Neanderthal or Mammoth is silly. Can't we think of a better way of putting it? Yaris678 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those taxa are on the IUCN Red List (surprise, surprise), so not only was the conservation status silly, it was also false. I've removed them. mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Do you think the fact that it is extinct should be mentioned in the taxobox though? Maybe it would require a change to the template. I don't know. Yaris678 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Generally if a taxon is extinct it is marked with a dagger which I wikilink to extinction.--Kevmin (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC) As a related though, how would people feel about renaming this parameter from "Fossil range" to "temporal range". true it isn't quite the same meaning but this template is being used on taxa that are extinct but not known from fossilized remains (eg mammoths, some moas etc..) and is starting to be used a bit in the geoboxes for geologic formations.--Kevmin (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevinmin, You have addressed everything I am talking about. Thank you!

I’d not considered the dagger. It is a good idea, although not universally implemented. I notice that Neanderthal doesn't have it. Mammoth has it, lower down the template, next to the genus (but without the link). I think it would be a good idea to put it next to the name at the top – I assume that is what you were talking about. Maybe we could do this automatically through the template. An option like “extinct=yes” or something.

I think temporal range is a much better term than fossil range.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Domain

At a few pages, including Human and Mammal, there have been edits to include the domain Eukarya in the taxobox. I have reverted that a few times, but would like input here on whether inclusion of the domain is warranted. The argument in favor is that Eukarya is a major and important rank and that its inclusion in the taxobox adds useful content; the argument against that it is unnecessary clutter that does not add to the understanding of articles at low taxonomic levels.

If this is to be done, it should be done for all eukaryotes, I think, since the arguments would be the same as for Human. I think the best way to carry out such a change would be by tweaking the taxobox to automatically include the domain when |regnum=Animalia, |regnum=Plantae, |regnum=Fungi etcetera is called. Ucucha 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be done for ALL eukaryotes. I need help, however, doing that all over Wiki. I can't do that all by myself. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, this could be done automatically by simply altering the taxobox template. In any case, please wait with making changes until this discussion is resolved. Ucucha 03:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is very well documented, but the usual practice is to include all major ranks, but only minor ranks between the subject taxon and the major rank immediately above it. So for a genus, the only minor ranks we would include are those between family and genus: i.e. subfamily, supertribe, tribe, subtribe, supergenus. And for a species, the only minor ranks we would include are those between genus and species: subgenus, section, subsection, series, subseries. (Exceptions are made in cases where a minor ranking is actually of major importance, such as Bambuseae, which arguably merits inclusion in every bamboo species taxobox.)

With respect to domain, I say it is a minor ranking, and should be treated as such. If we follow the above scheme, then, we would include it only in taxoboxes that address taxa at kingdom rank or above.

Hesperian 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of "domain" is non-standard in most literature unless the topic is close to the kingdom level. That sounds to me as not major. We shouldn't include it unless the topic is kingdom rank or above. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Domain should not be included for any taxon article below kingdom rank. It just doesn't contribute very much at all for anything lower-ranked than that. -- Yzx (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree in general, with the main exception being the Bacteria and Archaea. A good deal of our bacteria taxoboxes include the domain, because unlike the eukaryotes, bacteria have similar structural morphology but vastly different taxonomies. The general reader, also, will not likely recognize the kingdom (or phylum) Crenarchaeota as being Archaea and not Bacteria. But for all Eukaryota, this rank is understood and unnecessary in the taxobox. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't have Domains in taxoboxes EXCEPT from Bacteria and Archaea. 84.13.84.196 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any logic to this argument. "Kingdom" is superfluous if you have "phylum" or "division", and similarly below. Why continue as far as the "kingdom" and then stop? --11:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a question of what is important enough to warrant including. Considering that

1. 99.9% of our articles on living things are eucaryotes;
2. Very few readers of these articles know or care what eucaryotes are; and
3. The fact of being a eucaryote adds nothing to the understanding of these topics, and would never get a mention in the text;

it seems fairly clear that this is a low-value link that doesn't deserve prime infobox real estate. Contrast this with the kingdom: virtually every article will, or ought to, mention that the topic is an animal/plan/fungus/alga, in the very first sentence. Hesperian 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your last sentence: I think very few articles on animals at low taxonomic levels mention that they are dealing with animals (cockatoo, Tyrannosaurus, oceanic whitetip shark, Chrysirida rhipheus), except in passing. On the other hands, plants and fungi like Banksia sessilis and Galerina marginata do mention the kingdom in the first sentence. I think that's sensible. Ucucha 12:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. The first sentence should relate the topic to a universally understood concept. For vertebrates that might be something fairly specific like "snake", "frog", "bird", "monkey", "fish", etcetera. But for fungi one generally has to go all the way back to kingdom and say "fungus", because the different kinds of fungus are unknown to most of us. For plants there are a few universally understood concepts like "grass", "fern", "moss", but in many cases it is best to go all the way back to kingdom and say "plant". To tie this back to the topic: no domain is a universally understood concept, and it is never necessary, and always unhelpful, to go back that far (except in cases like Archaea where the domain really does aid in understanding). Hesperian 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The same argument is going on on the Reptile page. I guess a sort of common guideline should be found and noted down, or this dispute will pop up again repeatedly. Personally, I like the idea of including all major ranks, but only minor ranks between the subject taxon and the major rank immediately above it. The question is whether Domain is to be seen as a minor or a major rank. I feel Domain is a minor rank (and of no relevance bellow Kingdom level), but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I also agree that Domain should be included in Archaea and Eubacteria taxoboxes.--Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be a consensus that the taxoboxes should only list minor units up to the next major level or where it will strongly contribute to understanding (like Vertebrata I suppose?), and that Domain is a minor level. Any other arguments? If not, I'll edit the taxobox instruction text. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept - reluctantly - Hesperian's pragmatic argument that Domain need not occur in Eucaryote taxoboxes (but I will not be removing it if I see it). But I object strenuously to the suggestion that Domain is a minor level. It is a level which is, I understand, not yet accepted by all authorities: but it is in no sense minor. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Template error on ref for regnum

{{Taxobox|name=Animal |regnum=[[Animal]]ia<ref name="ITISBrachiopoda">reference</ref> |genus=''Aus'' |species=''A. bus'' |binomial=''Aus bus''}}

Animal
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Genus:	Aus
Species:	A. bus
Binomial name
Aus bus

If a ref is supplied for regnum, e.g. <ref name="ITISBrachiopoda" />, the whole taxobox breaks. I suggest the other taxonomic levels should also be checked to see if they handle refs correctly, and and other params where refs made be needed. --Philcha (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Provided an example here. You're right, it breaks stuff. Ucucha 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I realize the reason. The text of the regnum parameter is used to determine the color of the taxobox, and the system can't handle ref tags within the parameter text. There are two solutions to this: manually inputting the color (as I have now done in the example taxobox here) and not putting a ref in the |regnum= parameter (why would you want that?). Ucucha 00:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I keep talking to myself, but as you see putting the ref in other parameters does not break anything (that is expected, because those parameters aren't parsed into the color magic). Ucucha 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see why the regnum parameter is used to determine the color of the taxobox.

But anything should allow a ref – you'll see if you encounter a obsessive or mischievous tagger. --Philcha (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never encountered a tagger obsessive enough to demand a citation for the facts that brachiopods are animals (is that where your example comes from?), but sure, they may exist. If you need it, we have the workaround I gave above; beyond that, I can't see of anything to solve it beyond entirely changing the way the taxobox handles the color variable, unless there is some clever way to process the parameter value to remove the ref. Ucucha 00:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone fact-tagged the Kingdom field of a taxobox, I would probably respond by removing the tag and providing a citation where the article text gives the kingdom. Hesperian 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Status system

Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter is now down to 25 entries, and I'm not sure what should be done with the leftovers. They fall into three classes:

1. Taxa at least formerly on the IUCN Red List, but where the web link is now dead. (8)
2. Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. (14)
3. "Critically endangered" British species, but not assessed by any explicit criteria as far as I can see. (3)

Any input would be a great help; I'm sure we can get this category empty. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very impressed. Hesperian 12:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't offer any help, but nice work! 124.148.149.122 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hidden microformat category

{{editprotected}}

Please will someone add:

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Articles with 'species' microformats]]}}</includeonly>

at a suitable place in this template? The same markup may be seen in use on {{Infobox chicken breed}} and the resultant, hidden, category on Manx Rumpy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the advantage of this change? Ucucha 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It will facilitate the monitoring of the use of microformats on Wikiepdia - note the other, long-established sibling categories under its parent category. And why not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox provides the same functionality. Why not? Because it complicates the template, even if it's only to a small extent. Also, this will place articles that are not on species in a category that suggests they are. Ucucha 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That page does not provide the same functionality; it does not include the relevant articles in the family to categories referred to above; and it does not return a numeric total. To leave that family part-unpopulated would be most unhelpful. 'Species' is the (working) name of the microformat (hence the use of single-quotes); it says nothing about whether the subject is a species, genus, kingdom, breed or other rank. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's poor design to use these other categories, rather than the functionality that MediaWiki automatically provides (I am sure there's a way to find the number of pages in a Whatlinkshere page). I know it's the name of the microformat, but the name is wrong, and I am not particularly fond of propagating wrong names. Anyway, Kaldari has made the change. Ucucha 15:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Added for now. (Please remove if consensus is otherwise.) I think it will be useful to have one place listing all the articles using the format, although I do hope they change the name of the microformat soon, as it is quite confusing (as demonstrated above). Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The microformat's name is under consideration, for the next revision of its specification. I'd favour something like 'hBiota'.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like discussion of the microformat stalled out a couple years ago (unless it's moved elsewhere). I would encourage you to go ahead and change it on the microformats wiki, as it will only be harder to change later. "hBiota" or simply "biota" sound great to me. BTW, I am experienced with the DarwinCore metadata spec (which is sort of the older sibling to this microformat), and am interested in the possibility of eventually implementing RDFa within Wikipedia. If you aren't familiar with RDFa, I would encourage you to take a look at it and let me know what you think. It solves a lot of the major problems with implementing semantic metadata on the existing web. In many ways it is similar to the idea of microformats, but much more extensive. Kaldari (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop you an e-mail about the former matter; and suggest we take discussion of the latter (which is of great interest to me, and likely to veer off-topic for this page) to the microformats project talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)