Template talk:Taxobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Taxobox has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit. If you wish an edit to be made to something else, such as rewording the documentation or adding an interwiki link, you can edit Template:Taxobox/doc.

See the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage to learn how to use this template.

Contents 1 Suggested parameters 2 Whitespace problem 3 WikiSpecies 4 Can we change the "?" 5 unranked 6 Eliminating meta-templates 7 Image descriptions 8 New bolding & authority entries incorrect with expectations 9 Taxobox request 10 Image caption 11 CSS hack reduces accessibility 12 Proposed revert 13 Problem with Template 14 Update 15 Authority 16 Conservation status text size 17 Unranked entries 18 Ambiguous divisions 19 Whitespace, again 20 Problem? 21 Importing into other language versions 22 conservation status syntax updated 23 Border 24 Problems 25 "Conservation status" to new section 26 Status + Range Problems 27 Conversion 28 Conservation status 29 Box border 30 Unranked rank 31 Conservation status 32 Listing common names 33 Synonyms 34 Preventing some line breaks 35 Links 36 Species field 37 The "?" link 38 Synonyms and range maps 39 Line thru' taxobox 40 Links to NCBI Taxonomy browser 41 ID or class ? 42 Range map needs centering 43 Doc page pattern 44 color parameter 45 Rewamp design 45.1 Back to topic 46 Bevel 47 Colors 48 Trend 49 eu interwiki 50 Conservation status links... again 51 Box border again 52 Redesign proposal (from Village pump) 53 Conservation status 54 New taxobox is misleading for endangered species not on the IUCN Red List 55 Extinction 56 Excessively rigid taxoboxes 57 Taxobox change? 58 Neatness 59 Need new taxobox template status: "Probably extinct" 60 interwiki 61 Conservation status image using Birdlife International colours 62 Edit: Conservation status 63 Conservation status categorisation 64 Type species 65 Mystery Character 65.1 Related suggested change? 65.2 Imagemap 66 Minor avoid redirect thing 67 Sounds and videos 68 Taxonomist's Name 69 Chromosome number 70 Conservation one more time! 71 Wikipedia:How_to_read_a_taxobox 72 Support for variety rank 73 Space for "other" common names

[edit] Suggested parameters

Great work bringing on the new template!... but there are still a couple of parameters missing.

Firstly, I need to be able to specify taxa at "Section" and "Series" rank. See Taxonomy of Banksia for evidence of a number of non-existent species articles, for which these ranks will be needed when I get around to writing them.

Secondly, the "Diversity" option was very useful. I used it at Banksia to state the number of species, since the subdivision was at subgenus rank. It is also very useful for higher taxa such as families and orders.

Thirdly, the "Synonyms" option was also useful, and should be included here.

Snottygobble | Talk 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Diversity option done. Snottygobble | Talk 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Section, Series and Synonyms options done. Snottygobble | Talk 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • The "section" rank should have been entered in Latin, so it should have been 'Sectio'. (The sectio templates already existed). I don't think the section and series ranks were added in the right place. At least on the page Taxonomy of Banksia, both ranks are above the Families.
    • Thanks for that, but you lost me in the last sentence there. On Taxonomy of Banksia, Banksia is a genus, and sections and series are subgeneric taxa, just as in the taxobox. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, they are. I misremembered. However, you inserted them at the bottom of the template, below the subspecies level. Eugene van der Pijll 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • So I did; thanks for picking that up. It's fixed now. Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your addition of the diversity and synonym templates inserted more whitespace in taxoboxes not containing these templates. I've tried to remove the whitespace, with horrible effects on Banksia... As that is so far the only page using a new taxobox with these templates, I've subst'ed the taxobox, and repaired it manually. I hope someone knowledgeable in the arcane templating arts can debug the template... Eugene van der Pijll 17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I confess the whitespace was indeed introduced by me, but this was in an attempt to fix the taxobox at Jarrah, which was showing the same horrible effects you saw at Banksia, even though it does not use either of the new parameters. Your fix has destroyed the taxobox at Jarrah once again. I'm going to revert your change. I acknowledge that the whitespace is a problem, but until we can find someone "knowledgeable in the arcane templateing arts" to address this problem properly, extra whitespace is preferable to some boxes not working at all. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, but I thought only Banksia was broken, and I had subst'ed that template out. Anyway, it's been solved now, thanks to Josh. Eugene van der Pijll 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace problem

Can somebody who understands templates fix it to remove the unattractive extra whitespace please? The most obvious and simple fix utterly destroys the taxoboxes at Jarrah and Banksia, so please take these pages into account when fixing. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem by including empty comments at the start of each footer template. Josh

• Thanks Josh. Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSpecies

Shouldn't everything that links to this template be transwikied to WikiSpecies?the1physicist 17:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiSpecies isn't a content fork of Wikipedia. It is a directory, eg. it only includes taxological ranking. --Oldak Quill 18:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

..oh. In that case, I don't see the point of wikispecies since we're duplicating the taxology here.the1physicist 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh... you are not alone... see the mailing list around the time of Wikispecies creation :). Pcb21 Pete 08:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be one simple link to Wikispecies in the taxobox to the specific class/genus/species or whatever the article is on. The point of Wikispecies is to go far more in depth than Wikipedia, and so it should have every classification category, unlike Wikipedia which ought to only list the important ones. A link in the currently unused taxobox title-text would allow an interested person to go from the general information to the detailed, specific scientific information while keeping the focus of each Wiki. I wrote a bit of code that links to the classification-format Wikispecies page if there is a binomial or trinomial name, and otherwise a Wikispecies link to a page of the name of the Wikipedia page. That common name-format page can then be redirected by the initial editor to the proper classification-format page, which we know already from the Wikipedia information. For examples, I've already done this with the whale and oak taxobox usage examples. This code would replace the simple {{{name}}} towards the start of the template:

{{#if: {{{species|}}} | {{#if: {{{binomial|}}} | [[Wikispecies:{{{binomial}}}|{{{name}}}]] | [[Wikispecies:{{{trinomial}}}|{{{name}}}]] }} | [[Wikispecies:{{{name}}}|{{{name}}}]] }}

Test it out. The few problems is that right now the bi/trinomial names have formatting marks for italics which need to be moved outside the {{{bi/trinomial}}}; it's a widespread problem but a very quick fix. The other problem is with multiple bi/trinomial classifications; a simple fix would be to add a {{{bi/trinomial_2}}} input. It shouldn't be too hard to go back and fix existing taxoboxes and should be very simple when creating new taxoboxes. This, I believe, would help fill the gaps and properly bridge Wikipedia and Wikispecies. RttlesnkeWhiskey 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While your wikicode is probably correct, having the link in the taxobox is not. Links to external sites, including sister projects, should be in the External links section. Sister project links are generally put in a sister links box in that section. (Such as {{Wikispecies}}.) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On the technical side, it needs more testing and should support bi/trinomial_2 also (as much as i can't stand those keys) as you say. Also the articles on Wikispecies sometimes have slightly different titles to what Wikipedia puts in its taxobox (e.g. when there's synonyms or a subgenus taxon), so the option of overriding the defaults would be needed. Also if there is no bi or trinomial name on Wikipedia, no link should be shown at all to Wikispecies unless an override is given (the default you have there is to link to the English name i think?)

On the policy side of things, I think every rule has its exceptions, and allowing external links from info boxes (especially to reference sites such as Wikispecies) is one such exception which is already common enough. e.g. Casablanca (film) links to IMDB; Brain stem links to various reference sites; and Sony links to stock prices. I support linking to wikispecies from the Taxobox if it can be done neatly.—Pengo 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would propose adding a line like "wikispecies=<taxon>". This way, one can easily link to WikiSpecies if one wants to, without breaking existing code. And there would be no problem with having different names in wpedia and wspecies. --Sarefo 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That works fine for articles about a single taxa, but what about an article about a taxa that is monotypic inside another, such as chimpanzee (which is about Pan and Panina) or orangutan (Ponginae and Pongo), among countless others? I know of at least one article where there are two monotypic levels inside a larger, and one with even more. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(See also: Trichoplax.) -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(Yeesh!) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem at all. This link would provide an easy way to step over into WSpecies, and I think the taxobox is the most intuitive place for it. In the case of Trichoplax, I would eg. write "wikispecies=Placozoa". Then one can enter WSpecies at this point and click down the hierarchy. That's one reason why I wouldn't automatically use an already existing line for linking; this way, you can decide by hand what's the best entry point to WSpecies. And, btw, iirc Treptoplax reptans was probably some chemical preciptitate ;) --Sarefo 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we change the "?"

The first time I saw the question mark in the top right corner of the "taxobox" I thought someone had typed it to question the name of the plant (a sort of "is this really correct?" comment). Then when I saw it a few more times I began to think it was some sort of bug or formatting glitch in the template. Now finally I realise that it's a link to some help. Could we change it to read "help" in some suitably small and unobtrusive font? (Or at least make it look like a question mark icon, or graphic, rather than just text.)

I don't understand why this hasn't been changed. A "?" in taxonomy means something, it means there is uncertainty about the taxonomic placement. Wikipedia cannot have every taxonomic box on article pages showing that the taxon's identity is in question.

I just got a newsletter blurb from one of my writers advising readers not to use Wikipedia as a resource because it indicates that Umbellularia californica is in dispute as a name, when in fact it is not!

I thought she was talking about the common name discussion, but, no she pointed out that the species name is in dispute, "See the question mark after the species name in the classification box on the right?"

KP Botany 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is also discussed (more recently) at WT:TOL#Information link. See there for my reaction. Eugène van der Pijll 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this is still in discussion at that link Eugene posted. Until this is settled, I'm going to remove the {{editprotected}} request template. When it is settled, if there is agreement, and another administrator hasn't made the edit already, please link to the resolution, and put back the template. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unranked

I'd like to start working the new taxobox into the Primate articles, but there's a hitch preventing me. Several Primate taxoboxes (including the one at Primate itself!) includes an unranked taxon. I recognize the unfeasibility of inserting code into the template between every named taxa for a possible unranked one. Is there another way to get this to work? I've put the new taxobox into Primate, but left it commented out. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Before optional parameters were possible, I used some HTML to put within a parameter. It worked as follows:

Primates
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Subclass: Eutheria Not ranked: Euarchontoglires Superorder: Euarchonta Order: Primates Linnaeus, 1758
Families
15, See classification

As you may see, it works :-). Ucucha (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful! I had tried with wiki syntax. I hadn't thought to "go deeper" and use HTML.... and here I was one of the guys saying we should stick with HTML and not use wiki syntax for taxoboxes.... :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 :-). Ucucha (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating meta-templates

Netoholic created a new version of this page that didn't use meta-templates. This is, of itself, a good thing. Unfortunately the new version didn't work properly; for pages with subdivision lists, like Percolozoa, it created a duplicate of the list above the table. I don't know enough about the alternate syntax to fix the problem, so for the time being I've done a complete revert. However, it would be better if it could be fixed. Thanks, Josh

This is cause by a flaw in the way the template was inserted into the articles. From Percolozoa, the source shows this:

| subdivision = Acrasidae<br>
Gruberellidae<br>
Lyromonadidae<br>
Vahlkampfiidae

It should be:

| subdivision = Acrasidae<br>Gruberellidae<br>Lyromonadidae<br>Vahlkampfiidae

Please correct any occurences of this poor formatting, just like this, but meta-templates are a much bigger problem and we need to move away from them agressively. -- Netoholic @ 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

follow-up: I ran a bot process and I think all of these occurences are fixed. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The page states that meta templates should be avoided, but they should not be avoided at any cost, your CSS hack totally breaks layout in browsers that don't support CSS, which we aim to support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the talk page and look especially for comments from Jamesday. He has asked us to actively remove meta-templates, and Taxobox is the worst offender I've seen. CSS is a reasonable approach which works without straining the servers. As far as CSS support, I have read nothing that we "aim to support" people without it, and every major template relies on CSS. Even still, it won't break for that one guy without CSS, he will simply see all the rows, most empty. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "reasonable" approach inserts a lot of irrelivant garbage into the XHTML output which looks horrid in browsers that don't support CSS, and presumably also screws with screen readers. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It does look horrible in Lynx and possibly worse in Links. I shudder to think what a screen reader would make of it. But there should be a way to do it without, ahh, conditional templates ;-D At least partially - David Gerard 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure if there is something more current, but Wikipedia:Browsers says links/lynx is about 0.03% of our readers as of Feb 2004. Every infobox (converted or not) will look bad on them. Oh well. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's extremly arrogant of you, IMO having the page works properly (i.e. not contain lots of garbage content) and be accessable in all browsers is more important than shaving a few milliseconds off execution time. Accessability *is* important, whether you think people should just use another browser or magically gain eyesight or whatever *annoyed*. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for reducing server load, but not at the expense of editors or visitors. I'm tempted to revert back to your version based upon the screenshot you provided alone. —Locke Cole 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just one question Netoholic: there apppears to be a small white space right around the picture - any way to get rid of that? Also, don't forget about Template:Taxobox begin. --Khoikhoi 20:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the table to use em rather than px as a better way to support various local font setting. I can fill the space with the {{{color}} if that's better. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What about having the image fit so there is no whtie space? --Khoikhoi 20:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By hard-coding the width in pixels, you restrict what a hard-of-sight person can do. They may run their fonts very large locally, yet the table won't adjust. Using em avoids this. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's fine how it is now, then. --Khoikhoi 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic, having the template work properly is more important than having it follow efficiency guidelines. I'm glad you found a work-around for the subdivision problem, but we need a way to split the lists over multiple lines, as some of them are extremely long. I'll try some experiments when I have more time; but ultimately, if meta-templates are the only way to do this, we are going to need meta-templates, plain and simple. Unless we wanted to go back to using Template:Taxobox begin.

In the mean time, I'll leave the new version, but it would be nice if you could try to address Ævar's problems. Also, I'm going to restore Yath's formatting, as the new formatting is plainly disputed above and nobody was consulted before changing it. Josh

Is there any way to get rid of Yath's formatting? I've been trying for 10 minutes. --Khoikhoi 03:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? Josh

Yes, on pages such as Orca there is an extra line in-between the species name and its status. How does one remove that? --Khoikhoi 05:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I see User:UtherSRG has been trying to do the same thing. Does anyone know how? --Khoikhoi 17:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove the < br> in the template. Ucucha (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Where? The only place I can find < br> is further down. --Khoikhoi 20:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see. The Dutch template did have a < br> ;-). I don't know. Ucucha (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a good idea to have a separate template (Template:taxobox2 or so) to test changes before they are changed here? This is a very important template; I think it's better not to fight revert wars on it. Ucucha (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So wait, no one knows how to remove the line between Name and Status? --Khoikhoi 07:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried in taxobox2. Ucucha (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Voalavo antsahabensis Fossil range: Holocene
Conservation status
Not extinct
Scientific classification
Binomial name
Voalavo antsahabensis Goodman et al., 2005

Thank you so much! --Khoikhoi 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in fact wholly unconvinced that it is important to have this template working perfectly - at least, that it is more important than not crushing the servers under painful load. We got by for quite some time without pretty boxes on our taxonomy articles. Perhaps we need to simply return to that time. Alternatively, if Aevar and others were to join in trying to find a good solution instead of shooting solutions down, that would be helpful. Phil Sandifer 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you missed it, but WP:AUM stands for Avoid using meta-templates, not Never use meta-templates. There should almost never be a situation where the quality of the encyclopedia suffers because of developer constraints– this is precisely such a situation where WP:AUM likely does not apply because the alternative is demonstratably worse. —Locke Cole 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia, not to make life easier for the BOFHs. Firebug 01:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And, quite obviously, the solution is to add inherent support for infoboxes (including optional parameters) to the MediaWiki engine, thus avoiding the need for any template hacks. In case you ask why I don't do this myself, it's because my programming skills are in C and assembly, not PHP, and because I don't know how to use a CVS database nor have a server available for testing any modifications to the software. Firebug 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's plainly important to have things work properly. Anybody who changes the taxoboxes without that in mind may as well be vandalizing them, for all the good they're likely to do. That said, the concerns expressed in AUM are worth keeping in mind. I appreciate the work Netoholic has done in letting the taxoboxes confrom to his new version. However, there are three main problems:

• It doesn't work on some browsers;
• It doesn't accept multi-line inputs, which will make lists all but impossible to maintain;
• It messes up some of the formatting.

If anyone has solutions to these, excellent, but I get the impressions none exist. The hidden table sections are simply not as powerful as meta-templates, and we have to decide what to do until we get something that is. These are the three options:

• Keep using the new version, despite its problems;
• Revert to the old version, despite the server strain;
• Revert back to the multi-template system using Template:Taxobox begin, until a better solution emerges.

This is what I think. The meta-template version is definitely the best to use, but if it really consumes signficiant time and money, I don't think we can expect the rest of wikipedia to indulge it. I wouldn't have written it if I though it would be a serious issue. The multi-template system is harder to edit, but at least it works on all computers and didn't require lists stuffed in a single parameter. It's still used on most articles, and I'd suggest we go back to it, until developers add proper infobox support. Thoughts? Josh

Perhaps a compromise? Use the CSS / hidden table stuff where it works, but put in meta-templates/other solutions just for the things CSS doesn't cover right. Are multi-line inputs required in every section of the taxobox or just a few? Could a change be made for the 'standard.css' (or whichever skin) of users with older browsers to strip out undefined items in CSS-style infoboxes? Et cetera. There are going to be issues with any new implementation. Given that this does have performance issues (though I still have no clear idea of how significant they are) we should see if solutions to these glitches can be worked out. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem, the CSS/hidden table stuff doesn't work anywhere. Frankly this WP:AUM crusade Netoholic is on is really bad for the Wiki, far worse than the performance hit IMO. We should wait until there's a viable alternative to templates such as {{if}} and {{qif}} before killing them off (the author of {{qif}} has some code on meta that may help here, but I haven't heard where that's going). —Locke Cole 11:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks. I've brought this discussion over to WP:AUM (Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Section "Alternatives": Problem with CSS). The problem is that Neto is correct because, sadly for me too WP:AUM stands (It's a real pain in my arse but that does not matter). And WP:AUM is backed by an important developer (Jamesday). I know it myself because I'm also an aficionado of qif (I worked on template:book reference, still hoping that can survive) and I would be very glad if developers could implemement something like that in code. I know it's very sad. I've come myself to the conclusion that we better break lynx for now than being without any conditionals in templates. See also that whole discussion on WP:AUM. (Updated) Adrian Buehlmann 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

? Percolozoa
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Percolozoa Cavalier-Smith 1991 Class: Heterolobosea Page & Blanton 1985
Typical families
Acrasidae Gruberellidae Lyromonadidae Vahlkampfiidae

It seems a lot of people commenting here are talking about AUM in general, but here we're concerned about taxoboxes in particular. In this case, we can use the old multi-template system, as shown on right. It's comparatively clunky, but it doesn't use meta-templates and works properly on all systems. I think it's the best compromise. Would anyone else who actually uses these things object to reverting to this standard, at least until a real alternative to if templates appears? Josh

I really prefer the newer format for adding taxoboxes. But perhaps we can use a bot to change all existing new-format taxoboxes to old-format ones periodically? If necessary, I can write such a bot. Eugene van der Pijll 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if you could. In the mean time, important pages like dinosaur and protist have been broken trying to figure out how to compress the subdivision lists. So the current version is creating serious problems, and the meta-template version would need to be rewritten, since the conditionals have been removed. As such, I think we have to go back to the multi-template system, and I'm marking this template as deprecated. Josh

Mr. Weeble has come up with a way of doing old-style conditionals without meta-templates. Info on it can be found at Template_talk:Infobox_TV_channel. The basic structure is: {{{dummy parameter{{{Variable|}}}|Text and wikimarkup to be printed if Variable exists}}}. If 'Variable' is passed in to the template then the text is printed, otherwise it isn't. This may be adaptable to fix the subdivision problems with the CSS version. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and put in this code for the subdivision section. Seems to work ok. Take a look and let me know what you think. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me, and it does indeed handle multi-line inputs. If it still uses CSS, of course, it won't work on all browsers, but that can probably be fixed the same way. Josh

There are basically four ways of handling text suppression currently;

1. Conditional meta-templates: Strongly discouraged under WP:AUM.
2. CSS trick: Breaks multi-line text, problems with non-CSS browsers, et cetera.
3. WeebleCode: Requires a dummy parameter be set blank in the call or prints {{{Parameter}}} for any parameters not included in call.
4. Blank default parameter: Can only be used to suppress unpassed parameters, not header text related to them.

This template is currently using the last of those, {{{subdivision|}}}, to get around the multi-line problem. It uses CSS for everything else. WeebleCode might be a viable alternative to CSS throughout, but all calls to the template would need to have a '|weeble=' line or somesuch or they'd print any parameters not passed in. The conditional meta-template method is the only one which works in all cases, but it ought to be possible to mix and match the other three to come up with something servicable in most cases. Or we could wait for some hypothetical change to the MediaWiki software. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image descriptions

Khoikhoi pointed out that this template was not showing captions below the images the way the multi-line one did. There was an 'image_caption' parameter being passed, but the template was using it as the 'pop up' text which displays when you hover the mouse over the image. Since the captions often contain markup and hyperlinks, which can't be displayed in pop-ups, this didn't work very well. I switched it back to using the 'image_caption' as caption text below the image. I also added an 'image_description' parameter for the pop-up text. An example showing both caption and pop-up can be seen at Sperm Whale. Unfortunately, the pop-up text in all of the old multi-line taxobox calls were lost (and most of them seem to have had it set) somewhere in the conversion to the single taxobox template. I don't know how important people find this pop-up text (it defaults to the image file name), but it can now be set through the 'image_description' parameter. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New bolding & authority entries incorrect with expectations

Well, my expectations at least. "Kingdom:" etc. should not be bolded, but the current version causes such a bolding on Internet Explorer (damn company won't let me use Firefox anymore. (grumble, grumble.) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed to look more like Template:Taxobox begin. --Khoikhoi 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, taxa entries with an authority end up being centered vertically with respect to the taxa's rank; the rank and the taxa name should be on the same level, while the authority should be below. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed both. Are we happy enough with this new version, then, to encourage people to use it, or are there still outstanding issues? Josh

Please leave the row headers (! translates to HTML code <TH>, see meta:Help:Tables). This is very important for screenreaders. -- Netoholic @ 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't display properly on some (uncommon) browsers and the CSS won't be easily portable outside Wikipedia. There is a solution to those issues (see User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox3 for the template and User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox for several calls to it), but it would require adding |if= to each existing and future call to this template. Up to you folks whether the tradeoff is worth it... these issues have no impact on most people. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about a completely different subject. My comment above is about the wikitable markup, not CSS. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please unbold the row headers. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've undone Netholic's changes for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Netholic has redone his changes. I've removed the style change and left the row headers as he wants them. Is there a way to unbold them while keeping the "!" syntax? Unbolded is the standard for taxoboxes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the unbolded row headers just a "standard" because that's how they've unknowingly looked for a long time, or are the standard because this was specifically discussed in the past and decided upon. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Way back when, the taxa ranks were links. When we decided to do away with those links (since most linked to just one article) it was decided that they would be regular text. Not bolded, not italics, not any different in size, just plain text. Regardless, whether the status quo was a decision or not, changing from one format of table to another should not change the way a table is presented. If you want to make a change in the status quo, please discuss it first, don't foist it upon us without some discussion and consent. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What an aggressive response! I've already explained the main two reasons for using proper row headers ("!") - it fits with the wikitable pipe syntax and makes the tables easier on people who may use screenreaders. Do you want to explain what good reason we have to set aside the accessibility benefits? Something better than "I personally feel..." or "that's how it's been for x months" would be nice. Take a look at this explanation for information on why table headers are a Good Thing. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No more aggressive than your change. Whether "!" or "|" is used is keeping with the wikitable pipe syntax, so your point is moot. I've asked if there is a way to keep the "!" but lose the bolding, you were silent. I have no problem with accomodating screenreaders, but I'd like to have dialogue first, then agreement, then change (if agreed). To have the change foisted upon us without discussion, when there has been plenty of discussion about not changing the taxobox without discussion is quite aggressive. So again I ask, is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I know you want to bust out the word "unilateral". Anyway, yes, there are was to de-bold the headers. Are you concerned only for how it looks for you or for everyone? Personally, I doubt most readers would notice or care. -- Netoholic @ 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, "unilateral" hadn't come to mind. Why do you think this is about me, when I'm talking about quite literally years of discussions and changes with the taxobox? And perhaps most readers won't care or notice, but I know you care about screenreaders, and I care about taxobox format maintenance. The new taxobox template style (with your changes) is not consistent with the existing taxobox multi-template style. Yes, I don't like this, and yes, I can only speak for myself. However, I can cite the many dialogues on the subject of changing the taxobox. And yet again: is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few options. First, if you don't like that this template is different than the multi-template taxobox style, we can change those as well. Second, if you prefer them unbolded, I can show you how to change your personal settings in a way that addresses that. Third, I can de-bold them, but that change limits others by essentially forcing a style onto then that they won't be able to customize themselves (see my second point earlier). Fourth, we can just accept, for the time being, that this template have bolded headers (this will be a handy visual clue for anyone doing conversion work). -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just that people are objecting to them being in bold, which CSS can fix. It's that people should be objecting to them because they are semantically incorrect as well. The ! wiki table markup produces the HTML tag not for a table row, but that which means table header in HTML semantics. Many of the places that you are putting the ! markup are not table headers, they are ordinary data cells. For example, for the taxobox "Scientific classification" and "Binomial name" are headers, but not "Kingdom" and the like. David Newton 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question. Has anyone tried looking at this page with a screenreader? Because Ævar has suggested that the new version may not work with them anyways, and based on the sample of what goes wrong without headers, it doesn't look like it would make this table any harder to understand. And, Netoholic, unilateral action is fine until opposed; it would be nice if you would work with the people who actually use this, of which Uther is notable. Josh

Headers always make every table easier to navigate. Ævar's concern had nothing to do with screenreaders, but there is a method I am working on that will make these work even better for screenreaders (basically setting a parameter that prevents the screenreader from vocalizing hidden content). Please date your posts. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the border around the image. This is contrary to the old, accepted taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox request

Is there anywhere where people not familiar with the taxobox system or taxonomy in general can request a taxobox be added to an article? I consider myself fairly confident with both systems, so I'd like to help out people who are less confident. Perhaps there could be a link on Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox, as this is linked from every existing taxobox and so is a natural place for people to look for help? Just a thought. Soo 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption

I have a query on the image captions. Is it neccessary to put the photographer name on the Image caption of taxoboxes a part of the requirement for creative commons by attribution 2.5 licenses ? Shyamal 10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSS hack reduces accessibility

I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion. I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.

This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS. This makes Wikipedia less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers. This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:50 Z

EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revert

Given the recent revelations at WP:AUM, I'm proposing reverting this back to this version of the template. Is there any reason this would be bad? I would very much like to avoid the CSS hacks used in the current version of this template. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what this looks like in Lynx (and other non-CSS capable browsers). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot looks pretty good. The other alternative is inefficient on the back-end, involving dozens of database calls that can be avoided. The current template source is quite readable, and the template itself is easy to place into articles. There is more cleanup we can do for non-CSS browsers, but that is an EXCEEDINGLY LOW percentage of page views (and the geeks that use it know what they're getting into). -- Netoholic @ 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you realize a lot of those lines wouldn't even be displaying if we were using the meta-template version of this template, right? (Basically any line without info on it wouldn't display). It's a huge confusing mess right now in Lynx... —Locke Cole • t • c 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not confusing, it seems well laid out. The flaw of meta-templates is in the fact that the template source using meta-templates is unreadable except by template geeks. Biologists may want to change this template sometime in the future, and they shouldn't need to deal with odd syntax. It also does cause many, many more database calls (though the practical impact of that hasn't been proven). Avoid complexity. Don't use the presentation on lynx as the only factor. Lynx is an outdated thought experiment with very low realusage. I am fine with this template looking the way it does on Lynx, so long as it looks good to the future editors of lynx. -- Netoholic @ 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is absolutely confusing. Many of those fields shouldn't even be displayed, and yet they are. Your solution for this problem, please? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and reverted it back to the meta-template version. Please report any problems here, and let's see if we can't reduce the reliance on meta-templates (without sacrificing the accessibility of articles that use the template for disabled viewers). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got some thoughts on reducing the number of internal template calls here. It may be possible to simplify the logic somewhat while keeping the functionality (and avoiding CSS compatibility problems). --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, anything we can do to minimize the use of meta-templates while not sacrificing accessibility would be most welcome. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Being bold", when it's clear there is opposition to the change. Your trolling on this subject is becoming tiresome. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the accessibility of articles to the disabled trumps your campaign against meta-templates. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Netoholic had claimed that all screen-readers were CSS enabled, but it turns out that one of the most common ones is not. That's a much bigger deal than the Lynx/Links browser problems. Further, Brion says that when/if meta-templates become a significant server load issue it will be addressed on the developer side. That eliminates the entire rationale behind converting to the CSS hack... even if it hadn't recently been found to be defective. There is just no reason to continue using that method now. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Shall we edit war over it? --Adrian Buehlmann 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Template

Hello, there's a problem with this template I think. Everything seems fine in English Wikipedia, however when I set this template with its all sub templates, it shows all the empty taxonomic headers (for ex. shows classis although it's not defined), this is due to the changed style when I log into my account, I mean if I read the article anonimously, everything seems correct. Is there any workaround for this problem?

Here's my template in Turkish: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Taksokutu

--Alperen 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is likely the CSS hack. The way the template suppresses text now is based on a change to the MediaWiki:Common.css to add;

/* hiddenStructure from Monobook - allows selective hiding of markup in templates */ .hiddenStructure {

  display: none;
  speak: none;

}

If the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have that it wouldn't suppress the text and you'd see the extra fields you are describing. That said, Locke Cole is proposing that we revert this template to a version which uses meta-templates rather than the CSS hack... which would remove this problem and others related to CSS. There is currently debate and confusion about the relative merits of CSS vs meta-templates vs 'Weeble' (another option for conditional text). Personally, I think we'll end up with a combination of meta-templates and Weeble (which is really just a sometimes better way of applying the concepts behind conditional meta-templates) and scrap CSS due to it's inherent flaws, but it is still being sorted out. In the interim you can get the kludge above added to the Turkish Wiki or use an earlier non-CSS version of this template. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I realized the hiddenstructure parametre in the template and also realized that the problem was about it :), but I actually had no idea how to get stuff working. A big thank you :) --Alperen 09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

As Locke Cole and I were discussing I've gone through and made some changes to the way this template works. The results displayed should not change and the CSS hack is not used, so it will work on all browsers. However, I've added new sub-templates to make the template more efficient. Since 'if defined call1' (and 'call2' / 'call3' also) nested in both the 'if defined call' and 'void' templates, each conditional section of this template was calling three other templates. Making the 'authority' lines under each of the classifications (Genus, Species, Order, et cetera) a separate call also meant three nested template calls for each of those. I have changed it so that each conditional element uses a single nested template and the 'authority' lines are all included in the same condition as the element they are an authority for (reducing six template calls to one for each of the thirty-two classification options). Thus the number of nested template calls has been greatly reduced. This also resulted in reducing the total length of the template. You can probably figure out the logic of the new format by inspection, but let me know if there are questions. I'll put some instructions on the new sub-templates later. Also let me know if anything breaks... I tested it with alot of different pages before updating, but there are always special conditions. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authority

How does one go about finding the autority for a species? Any good sites? Google isn't helping much... -Ravedave 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The IUCN Redlist is a good place to start for animals: http://redlist.org - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The IPNI is an excelent database for plants : [1] JoJan 13:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status text size

The text size of the conservation status section is so small as to be unreadable. Can we make it slightly bigger? In the final source it ends up rendering the text inside a double set of <small> tags. I believe one set would be adequate. Unfortunately the template is so convoluted I can't figure out how to edit it myself. Kaldari 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, can someone make it be the same size as how it looks on Template:Taxobox begin? --Khoikhoi 02:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Better? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unranked entries

Taxoboxes with unranked entries in the classification section cannot at present be represented using this template. You can see at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox norank entry that there are quite a few (mostly among the extinct reptiles). You can see that Deinonychus and Archosaur contain three adjacent unranked entries.

There are various options, none altogether palatable:

1. Abandon Linnaean classification for some taxa.
2. Use intermediate ranks for the unranked taxa (e.g. sn2000 gives Archosauria the rank of division [2])
3. Remove unranked taxa as far as possible in the taxoboxes.
4. Extend the taxobox template to allow unranked taxa to appear. Perhaps one unranked taxon per rank would be adequate for most purposes.

Gdr 15:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall seeing a taxobox which handled this issue by putting the code for the 'unranked' item(s) in the preceding entry. For instance, on Deinonychus you could set, '|subordo = [[Theropoda]]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>[[Coelurosauria]]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>[[Maniraptora]]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>[[Deinonychosauria]]'. Not the prettiest methodology, but it should work. The problem with implementing this directly into the template is that you would have to list an 'unranked' parameter under each level (unranked-ordo, unranked-subordo, et cetera) to be able to determine where to place them. If it would be ok to put all the unranked items at the end that could be accomplished easily. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the unranked entries have to appear in their proper order. Yes, in (4) above I was imagining having one unranked parameter for each rank. Not very nice. This whole problem arises from a collision of taxonomies: the taxobox supports a Linnaean (ranked) taxonomy but experts on extinct reptiles tend to use cladistic taxonomies. Gdr 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the page I recalled which does this. See Primate for an example of unranked entries in the existing taxobox. Rather than adding lots of new parameters I might suggest another template. Something like |subordo = [[Theropoda]]{{unranked|taxa1|taxa2|taxa3|taxa4|taxa5}}. The 'unranked' template would then convert however many parameters passed to it into HTML to add the extra rows under subordo. Only problem with this is that the 'subordo_authority' (if set) would end up under the last unranked entry. Though that could be avoided by setting the 'unranked' in the authority line. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If entries are added to taxoboxes by hacks like the one at Primate then this will cause trouble for automated tools that operate on taxoboxes. It would be better to have a recommended approach. I think that one unranked entry for each major taxon above family would handle 90% of cases: for example unranked_familia for a rank above family (and superfamily etc) and below order (and suborder, infraorder, etc). I'll try implementing this. Gdr 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous divisions

In botany, "Division" is a rank below kingdom and above class.

In zoology, "Division" is a rank below order and above family. (I don't know how standard this is but it is used at SN2000 and we have some articles that use it, e.g. Heliconiinae.)

At the moment the taxobox template only implements the botanical use of "division". How can it be made to implement both? Gdr 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of both and use "bot_division" and "zoo_division" (or some such...) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But getting rid of "divisio" would break thousands of botanical taxoboxes! Surely a bit too drastic? Gdr 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is 'divisio' used extensively for zoological boxes? If not then it can remain as is for botanical and a new 'zoo_divisio' parameter (and associated authority) be added for zoological entries. If 'divisio' is being used alot for both currently then something could still be done where we have 'divisio' appear twice in the list, but only print it if both 'divisio' and some bot/zoo identifier parameter is set. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think zoodivisio is the right way to go (leaving divisio for plants). "Division" is rarely used in the zoological sense, but there are thousands of plant taxoboxes that use it. I added it to the template but removed it from Heliconiinae in line with the "major ranks only except where more detail is useful" guideline. Gdr 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace, again

Spaces after link to another article is killed in taxobox (in subtaxa part and maybe somewhere else). See Rosales (list of families) and Rosaceae (Amygdaloideaeor Prunoideae).--213.247.213.207 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem?

Found this broken Taxobox. I hope someone with more experience than me can fix it: Pachyrhinosaurus Jogloran 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I went back and looked at the prior multi-line taxobox... it had one line broken in the same way and that was copied over by the bot. Just an extra set of open brackets '[[' with no corresponding close. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importing into other language versions

I can't seem to transfer this template to the Irish Wikipedia - I copied and pasted but it comes out as gibberish. Any advice? EamonnPKeane 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I copied over some of the templates that were missing, but it still looks wrong. I'll keep looking at it and see if I can figure out what's missing, but if anyone else wants to look, check out ga:Teimpléad:Taxobox. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, it kind of looks okay when I copied one of the examples from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage (other than the images missing and everything being redlinked). I'd still appreciate it if someone took a look to make sure it looks alright to them. =) See ga:Plé teimpléid:Taxobox for the example I copied over. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks right to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conservation status syntax updated

I've updated the conversation status so it takes the two-letter IUCN codes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger&diff=42564299&oldid=42505372

The new way of using it and all the new codes are on the taxobox usage page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage#Conservation_status

If you don't like new things, you can use the old way still too. As for me, I find two letter codes easier than long-winded template names. I've made it as easy to use as possible, and stayed "backwards compatible". Enjoy!

Let me know if there's anything that acts oddly. I did do a bit of testing before I updated the template (there's quite a cache purge when you do), but let me know if anything's not right. It's moderately scary updating a template used by so many pages.

—Pengo 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Border

Several people have tried to change the border colour to the default grey for infoboxes, but UtherSRG, who seems to think he owns this template, has reverted them each time. I can't find any discussion where it was decided not to use grey. What does everyone else think? ed g2s • talk 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It has never been decided to use the gray. It has never even been proposed. There has been one user who unilaterally tries to change it a lot, but he isn't into discussing things, apparently (I am not referring to you, ed g2s). --Yath 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh bull, ed. I'm hardly acting alone. The following folks have likewise reverted the gray border to the current one, on this template and on {{taxobox begin}}:

• User:Yath
• User:MPF
• User:Josh Grosse

Here are some typical comments given for their reverts:

• you don't get to decide this. take it to WP:TOL talk and let the community decide.
• restore - Template:Box:right conflicts with taxobox colors scheme)
• restore older version - new one looks awful with huge white margins
• go to WP:TOL's talk to discuss this. We've settled on using *this* version. Please don't toccolourize us.
• restore visually attractive format)
• rv to better-looking version)
• Rv. This is our standard, challenge through acceptable channels.
• Rv to agreed TOL standard...
• undo unattractive gray border

Discussions of various natures have been had on the talk for WP:TOL and on template talk:taxobox begin. None of those discussion have convinced anyone of anything except that the taxobox shall remain black-bordered, and that your meddling is bothersome. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

Apparently new changes to the template are causing empty spaces to appear inside taxoboxes when using subdivisions and also at the top of articles. Examples Tiktaalik and Tetrapod Joelito 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems appear to be fixed now. Joelito 03:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conservation status" to new section

I've made the conservation status (together with fossil range) a new section by itself rather than being part of the heading. It's more consistant this way and allows future expansion. I've also allowed references to be added to the status with "status_ref" (see Golden lion tamarin for the only example so far). Further tweaks may still be needed, but so far it looks like I haven't broken anything. The plan is to update all the statuses of red listed creatures and properly reference it all too. Any problems let me know ( and/or fix it yourself :) ) —Pengo 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ew. I don't like it. For now, I'm reverting. Post some mock-ups and let's work on tweaking it as a mockup before we go mucking with the template, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you don't like about it? The change basically was to make the "conservation status" look the same as the rest of template. It's much too bulky to squeeze in where it is. I also changed some wording, because I don't think (nt), (cd) and (lc) mean a lot to many people. —Pengo 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Post some examples, or links to such and we can discuss it, along with other folks. I don't believe status_ref is needed, since one can always add a ref to the end of an item (as I've now done on Golden Lion Tamarin (note the caps)). (nt), (cd) and (lc) are explained at conservation status, for those interested in looking. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some mockups:

Left to right:

1. How it is now (with references)
2. The new version (reverted)
3. Making the threat level more clear again with a graphic (yes, i did actually plan to discuss this one first, but the first step seemed like a no-brainer. Also the font size isn't meant to be bigger here.)

Also, adding a ref to the end of an item works with the name, but not with the status code, unless you keep using the old status-templates, which i personally find pretty horrible. But other suggestions are welcome.

I think version two looks a lot cleaner than the original (1). Also I don't see why someone should look up what "(nt)" means when the whole of "Conservation status: Lower risk (nt)" could be replaced entirely with just "Near threatened" and convey much more in much less space.

—Pengo 17:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I like the 3rd mockup. Very nice.

1. Why the change from conservation status to population status?
2. I believe it should be "Lower Risk (Near Threatened)", not the other way around.
3. Months ago, we uncolorized the conservation status on the grounds that the colors were not NPOV. I'm thinking your graphic will be judged the same way.

- UtherSRG (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think taxoboxes should be as concise as possible. It is better to make things like conservation status only a small text, instead of a large section.

By the way, I recently added a parameter "rl-id" to the Dutch taxobox template, which serves to add a list to the species' page at the Red List website (those pages have a number, this should be included). It is, for example, included in nl:Moncktonbeverrat. Maybe it can also be added here. Ucucha (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1. It's not so much that I like the term "population status" as that I'm not fond of "conservation status". "Conservation" doesn't fit with many of our "special" statuses such as "fossil" or "extinct" or "prehistoric". And it doesn't sound particularly NPOV, implying that a species is "extinct" because it wasn't "conserved" (although that may well be the case). By the way, the IUCN uses the term "Red List Category" instead. If I wasn't pushing to put it in its own section, i'd be pushing to have the heading removed entirely and simply write "Endangered" by itself under the plant/animal name, with a link to "Endangered species" or "conservation status" or "Wikipedia:Conservation status" (the "Conservation status" heading randomly pickls between either of these last two in different templates)
2. It's a bit more complex than that. The most recent red list categories (2001 cats) leaves out "Lower risk" and simply has NT and not LR/nt, which is only used for species which have not be re-evaluated since the change. (1994 cats.) I kept the "lower risk" part to keep it consistant with our current wording, but really "lower risk" should only been shown on species evaluated with the old system, if at all. I'm working on a bot to update all species to their current IUCN red list category complete with references by the way, so LR/nt and NT will be distinguished, at least potentially. Fortunately there's only two category sets in use.
3. 
   Interesting point you raise about POV of colours. I'm no graphic artist and someone else could have a go at making a graphic. We'd probably need two versions depending on the criteria used (the 2001 categories drop "LR/cd" as well as not classing NT & LC as under LR) of the 1994 cats.). And I'm still a bit vague about it.
4. (in response to Ucucha): the section isn't really significantly larger than the status as it is today (Note that the conservation status is stretching the original version horizontally). And the graphic only adds a couple of lines (and it could be squashed more)
5. I agree with having reference to IUCN, and that was one of my main reasons for touching the taxobox template (I thought i'd clean it up while i was at it). But i've gone about it another way, putting in a <ref> tag, which does already include the id and the same link to the site. (e.g. see Sand Cat). But if a straight id + link is preferred (as with nl) we should go that way. (I'm readying a bot to do it either way) Comments welcome.
6. Another thing I'd like to discuss. Adding "population trend" to the population status. This could either be in the form of text ("population decreasing") or incorporated into the graphic (e.g. the circle could become an arrow left or right), or a stand alone arrow (up/down) like on the redlist site. Note that only a relatively limited number species have had "trend" evaluated. Values are: up, down, stable, unknown (and "unevaluated" or blank). —Pengo 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so sometimes I'm just a no-change kinda guy and it takes me soeme time to say I'm wrong. It's been a few months, and I'm seeing things with different eyes. So here it is. I'm wrong. I like your middle version, now, better than the existing format. Let's point some folks here to look it over and get buy-in to make the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a look over it, and I do, primarily, like the idea. However, there are a few things which concern me. The biggest of which is the change from "conservation status" to "population status". It isn't saying that a "species is extinct because it isn't conserved", it is stating what importance conservationists need to place on a species. The purpose of the conservation status is a tool for conservationists. I like the idea of the graphic, as it makes it more user friendly. However, the current graphic is a little clunky. Maybe we should ask a graphic designer Wikipedian to make which flows better. Also, I don't see a need to clutter the taxobox with citations. Ideally, an article should have a conservation status section, and all the citations could go there. If it is a stub, just have a general reference, as is what happens now. --liquidGhoul 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Population status vesus Conservation status. However, "population status" already has a meaning in conservation ecology and in biology. It means the size and distrubution and any associated changes in either. In conservation biology species for which there are insufficient data are often so listed because the current population status is unknown or insufficiently well known. On Wikipedia what will this mean? Population status "insufficient data" will means its population status is insufficiently known because its population status is insufficiently known? "Conservation status" is the term that is used, and personal preferences in terminology should not be a deciding factor in creating neologisms, or changing the meaning of an existing word to something else to use on Wikipedia.

KP Botany 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The section (as it currently stands) should really be renamed IUCN Category. There are, however, still many many pages which seem to have arbitrarily chosen a category or are at least are unreferenced. e.g. these. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status + Range Problems

Is there any way to fix the gap between Conservatio Status and Fossil Range? When both arguments are used is creates about two lines worth of space between them (see Giraffatitan).Dinoguy2 18:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't use both. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the article Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage, under Fossil Range, it states, For groups that still exist or only went extinct recently, the second period should be given as "Recent", and the current status should be indicated using the status argument. To me, this suggess the status and fossil_range arguments should be functional when both are used. If I'm wrong, maybe this section should be re-written.Dinoguy2 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the logic from using 'div' tags to 'span' tags to remove the blank space between the two sections. --CBDunkerson 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks!Dinoguy2 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion

I did some major rewrites of the template logic today... which should not have any impact on the actual display of the template (other than the separate spacing issue above). The goal was to remove the out-dated {{row}}, {{section}}, and {{subtext}} templates with #if:. While I created those templates for use here in the first place (and think they did alright as an interim solution) the newer built-in #if: functionality is less vulnerable to vandalism, faster, and in other ways a general improvement I believe. I also converted the way the existing #if: calls were working from a mix of HTML tables and wiki tables to using wiki table markup throughout for consistency. Note that the {{!}} template called in numerous places just evaluates to a '|' character... the pipe needs to be hidden inside {{!}} this way when used inside a #if: conditional to differentiate between |s separating #if: parameters and those which are table markup.

Please let me know if you encounter any problems. I tested this on about twenty pages, but there could still be a few glitches in the conversion which will only show up in specific circumstances. --CBDunkerson 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

[edit] Conservation status

The link in the taxobox points to Wikipedia:Conservation status. This violates WP:SELF and should be changed to a relevant content page. SchmuckyTheCat 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently this was changed, but the result is bad. Compare Conservation status, which is vague and does not explain what the codes used in this taxobox mean, with Wikipedia:Conservation status, which gives precise meanings to the codes. I don't think this violates WP:SELF any more than the "How to read a taxobox" link does. Stevage 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was confused when I clicked on the link and got that short article. I wanted to compare the status with others on the list. I think it should be changed back, or linked to an article space article that specifically deals with this status rating scheme. -- cmh 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Previously the link sometimes went to one and sometimes to the other in an inconsistant manner. Now that the conservation status field uses IUCN classifications it should be changed to something more appropriate. I've started several articles dealing with particular red list categories (see links on the sidebar of Conservation status) so perhaps the words after "conservation status" can be linked instead. —Pengo 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box border

I recently changed the color of the box's border from black to #aaa, which is standard across Wikipedia. However, I was quickly reverted by UtherSRG. Is it ok to use the standard #aaa color for the box's border or should we continue to use a black border, and if that's the case, why? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We should continue to use black because it looks better. --Yath 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it looks better. In any case it is not standard throughout Wikipedia to use boxes with a black border, so it looks inconsistent and therefore amateurish. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unranked rank

That is "| unranked_familia =" for example, and an oxymoron if you ask me. This particular template got to be a pain when editing Chiniquodontoidea as it allows for no flexibility in the positioning of unranked clades which sometimes are rather abundant as is the case. As I'd rather like to get the superfamily Probainognathia into that box and as I think simplicity is in order why not bring back unranked as exemplified below and allow it to fit everywhere among the ranked hierarchies.

• | unranked = {taxon}
• | unranked_authority = {author, date}

I agree I'm no template luminary, though I think this saves quite a few lines of code even if one has to create a subsidiary template and would make life somewhat more easy on us paleo-types Dracontes 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The template allows one unranked taxa above each (major?) ranked taxa. Each is needed because it is not simpler, given the restrictions of wikicode, to have a "floating" entry, that is, an entry that can appear in different places depending on other entries. Also, there is only one given because any more would be too much information for the taxobox to adequately describe. The taxobox should be a breif highlight, if you want to shove more information in it, you probably really need to split it into multiple articles and/or describe it in the text or with another diagram. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One solution I've used a few times is to use only ranked taxa in the txbx (or really well-known unranked taxa, but only one or two at most), and then have a phylogeny section in the text with an ASCII-style cladogram. The taxobox, in my experience, is best used for just classification, not phylogeny, so unranked taxa should only be used to designate major groups (like Oviraptorosauria).Dinoguy2 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Taxobox}} is simply unsuitable for a phylogenetic classification; it's really for Linnean classification. You can use the old multi-template system, or (better) develop a new template that's suitable for the purpose. Gdr 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status

Too complicated to edit, but all the links to Conservation status (which is totally uninformative) should instead go to Wikipedia:Conservation status, which explains what the codes mean. Can someone change it? Stevage 08:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing common names

The Synonyms section of the taxobox is great, as it allows you to list all of the older scientific names for a species. However, even though Wikipedia seems to think common names are more important than scientific names, there is no satisfying or standard way to list all of the common names that are often associated with a single species. I would like to suggest adding such a section to the taxobox, below Synonyms.--Jwinius 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms

The text alignment of synonyms section was centered, which looked like crap when you had a long list of synonyms of different length. They should be left-aligned with a little margin as the species or other subdivisions are. However, the syntax is beyond me (I tried, but to no avail). Can somebody please change the alignment to left-with-a-little-margin as in the species etc. listing (see Palaelodus for example)? Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this, please double-check it is working properly. Josh

Hmmmmh, thanks aplenty! It looks sweet now! Dysmorodrepanis 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preventing some line breaks

Sometimes the "species" line will break like this: [3]. Can the template be edited to prevent that? --Yath 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gdr 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks better now. --Yath 14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Wouldn't it be nice to make the various fields into links? E.g.: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.13.139.28 (talk • contribs) .

Nope. That's what the single link to Scientific Classification is for. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Species field

For a while now I've been writing articles and making pretty standard taxoboxes without thinking much about it. But, now I wonder about the species field: what's the point of always preceding the species name with an abbreviation of the generic name? In my view, this is totally superfluous, since the generic name is already mentioned directly above it and the binomial name directly below it.

I fear that it may also be confusing for people who are only coming to grips with scientific nomenclature, since it may give the impression that a species name is not complete unless it is proceeded by a capital letter, a dot and a space. It may also give them the notion that there is some fixed link between the generic name and the species name while in fact there is not, since species are often transferred from one genus to another.

To my knowledge, it is simply common practice to abbreviate the generic name when describing a species at length in order to save space, but only after the binomial name has been spelled out in full. To transfer this practice into the taxobox is unnecessary, inaccurate and confusing. Am I totally alone in this, or are there others who share this point of view? --Jwinius 12:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To leave off the generic or its abbreviation is much more wrong; the species epithet alone is insufficient. The Genus name can be abbreviated in the Species name if it has been spelled out previously on its own or in a Species name. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed in some detail a couple of years ago; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive10#Taxobox Standard. Gdr 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! That was quite a discussion. Looks like I should have been more precise. Here's an example of what I'm thinking of:

genus = Pseudocerastes

specific = persicus

subspecific = fieldi

trinomial = Pseudocerastes persicus fieldi

This seems more logical to me -- more in the spirit of the rest of the taxobox. Comments, anyone? --Jwinius 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that persicus or fieldi by itself has no meaning. It could mean any number of species, which also use the same epithets. P. persicus clarifies it so people at least have an idea what you're talking about. Most literature also does the same, abbreviating the genus name (and sometimes the species name), but I haven't seen many sources which just refer to something as fieldi and expect the reader to extrapolate the genera/species by previous mentions. They're going to use P. p. fieldi, or something similar. -Dawson 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You example, Jwinius, is what we used to have at one point. I was a strong proponent of keeping it that way. Im now a strong proponent to keep it the way it is. Thanks for the thoughts, but the current system is more correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind letting me in on what made you change your mind? --Jwinius 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If Mediawiki's templating system was stronger, then I'd prefer the way listed above, but it's crap so we should keep it as is. For information entry/storage the above suggestion makes more sense. With template-trickery the pieces could be assembled automatically and displayed exactly as they are now resulting in no change for the display of the page, but in a nicer input and more sensible division of data and display. However, there's no "substring" parser function to automatically take the first letter of the genus and prepend it to the species. So this is just idle pointlessness. —Pengo 02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the templating system were able to do certain things automatically, like generate a complete taxobox name using minimal input, but that isn't really necessary as far as I'm concerned. I'd be perfectly happy to keep filling in everything manually for the time being. I just thought that not typing those last few abbreviations would save everyone a little extra work while still looking pretty obvious to the casual reader. Thanks very much for your explanation, though. --Jwinius 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "?" link

Shouldn't the "?" be absolutely positioned so that it does not steal alignment from the name? Spiff 07:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. —Pengo 12:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a portable way to do this, please go ahead. (See here for details of a previous attempt.) Gdr 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be easiest fixed by making a 3 column table:

space

The Flying Dingbat

?

So a strip of the left and right would be missing, but at least if the name wraps, it would stay centered. I never got round to implementing it though. And using tables just layout is usually a no-no. The other possibility is just to give the "?" a line of its own:

?

The Flying Dingbat

Which would be a little cleaner, but use an extra line (the height of the ?). —Pengo 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This approach appears to work in Firefox, Opera and Internet Exploder without using extra table cells or lines:

?The Flying Dingbat

So I was bold and changed it. Let me know if it doesn't work in your favourite browser. Gdr 11:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's not so good in Safari, there's an extra thick border around the table cell. Maybe some CSS expert can make it render nicely in all browsers. Gdr 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms and range maps

I've just put a range map in the Emu article and the synonym field is showing up beneath the map rather than under the other taxonomic info. Is there a way to fix this? --Peta 12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Line thru' taxobox

The line which goes under the section headings (like the one just above this), seem to be going straight through the taxobox. This hasn't happened before, and I am wondering if it is just my computer, or if anyone else can see it. E.g. Rocket Frog. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing it, too. I'm running Firefox. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So am I. --liquidGhoul 13:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing it in Opera, so it isn't just you nor just Firefox. -Dawson 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to bring that up yesterday, but Wiki were updating the database so I thought that it must of been something to do with that. -- Froggydarb ^croak 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see the line in both IE and netscape.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that we have established it occurs, what has caused it? Could it have been making the "?" absolute, as that is the only recent change, and I am sure the problem couldn't have occured any earlier than that, we would've noticed it. --liquidGhoul 07:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the line isn't visible anymore. Did anyone change anything?--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like its back again.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted a fix on WP:TOL, which I have implemented. It has worked for all articles I have tested, except Rocket Frog. I have even reset the cache and it isn't working. So, I am guessing that it isn't going to work. I will leave the change there, but if someone knows a better fix, could they please implement it. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I edited Rocket Frog, and the line dissapeared. Looks as though the problem is solved! --liquidGhoul 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to NCBI Taxonomy browser

I think it would be useful to have links to the NCBI taxonomy browser in the Taxobox, although I dare not mess with the template code. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?name=%s where %s is the taxon name. Alternatively we could add NCBI taxids to the taxobox and link based on that. --Grouse 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NCBI is abysmally inconsistent with its taxonomy. It can range from month old cutting edge to very outdated even within a taxon. ITIS tends to be more consistent, but often consistently a decade old. TOL needs updating and finishing. Basically, I don't think there's a good enough source out there where we can apply or link to its taxonomy for all taxa.

You're probably referring to the genetics side of things, however. I had also been thinking that it would be great to have some sort of standard link to a species' NCBI page (for example, Pan paniscus would link here). Linked from that page is all genetic information ever published for that species. I would disagree with including this information in a taxobox along the same lines as not including basic measurements. Perhaps we should just develop a standard link to be included in External links. I would also argue against taking this approach above species level (or genus in poorly known taxa) as I can't see that doing much good. --Aranae 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, even ITIS is outdated for some things, and is missing whole genera for other things so it would not be suitable for a blanket link inclusion either. EMBL is the same way. I don't think there is a single definitive taxonomic resource, and agree that the best solution is to find the most accurate/detailed sites and include them in the external links instead of the taxobox. -Dawson 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be right to do this, because Wikipedia doesn't follow NCBI. In any case, why NCBI and not ToL, ITIS, SN2000, IPNI, or one of the other taxonomy databases out there? Gdr 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You could include links to the other taxonomy databases as well.--Grouse 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Better would be to link to a page like Wikipedia:Book sources. But better still would be for the authors of each article to give a reference for the taxonomy in the usual way. Gdr 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that linking NCBI for the sake of taxonomy is losing here. What about the idea of a standardized link to NCBI's genome resources for individual species? It wouldn't be in the taxobox. --Aranae 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A link to genome data in "External links" could be handy (and I certainly would not object), but much more useful would be a summary in the article itself of what is known about the genome and what it tells us about the species and its taxonomy. e.g. The number of somatic and sex chromosomes could be a start. And then linking to the NCBI's database as a reference. However looking at a small number of the Eukaryota listed, many have just one or two relatively short (500 base pair) sequences listed. I'm not sure how useful that information is to anyone. So... What would be the point of linking to NCBI's genome resources exactly? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid question. I think it's clear that the information for model organisms has some worth considering the sheer amount of data present at their NCBI sites. There may be several possibilities. A general idea of the model organismness of a particular species might be of use to readers. For example, it's not surprising that the Golden Hamster has been the subject of numerous genetic studies, but readers might be surprised that the Chinese Hamster has been a far more important model than any of the pet dwarf hamsters [4] [5] [6]. The fact that a species is only known genetically by 500 bp of CO I might be of value to some readers. It would certainly steer a student away from doing a report on the genetics of Sokolov's Hamster. These nucleotide entries would be a key place to look for the given student to find references. Overall, I think the best argument for it may be that NCBI is a unique and very important reference and a comprehensive record of the species should probably include genetics. I think the best argument against is "why would somebody asking these questions not be searching in NCBI in the first place?" --Aranae 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it sounds like the the real challenge is disseminating the information available into an encyclopedic form. Links to NCBI should be an afterthought. So, go on, start adding ==Genetics== headings. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID or class ?

To allow personalization of how this thing looks, it'd be nice to have it defined by means of a class or id instead of hard-coded CSS rules. That way, I (and other people that don't like the box style) can customize it. Any chance? --Thunderhead 13:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not likely. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? At least you could give it an id so I can hide it. --Thunderhead 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Thunderhead. This is probably the only box in wide use that only relies on inline style. Can anybody come up with a good reason why? chochem 15:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh? No. 90% of boxes rely to some point on inline css, even when it would arguably makes it so easier to have a class (e.g. category:band templates). Arguably, one could add class="infobox," but that would only remove a minimal amount of styling. And a dedicated class/id would be ridiculous, in my opinion.Circeus 15:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I said "only relies on inline style". Well, to me it's just a matter of proper classification. It is an infobox (i.e. it is a rundown of essential information placed to the right at the start of the article), so label it as such. As for appearance, a) monobook is not the only style being used and b) as Thunderhead points out it allows for customization. chochem 09:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range map needs centering

The template needs to be modified so that range maps are centered, just as the main image is when it's narrower than the taxobox. See Puma for a currently non-centered range map. --Yath 11:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doc page pattern

I've applied the template doc page patten. Everyone can edit the documentation, which is transcluded from Template:Taxobox/doc (even though the template is fully protected). Note that vandalism on the doc page doesn't propagate to articles.
Please add new interwikis to Template:Taxobox/doc. --Ligulem 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] color parameter

The "color=" parameter of the taxobox is frequently misunderstood by new editors; for example: "color = Pastel peach in colour with a horizontal red-orange stripe", "color = grizzled brown", and "color = lightgreen/yellowgreen". Perhaps it should be renamed to "taxobox_color" or something like that, to make it clear that we're not talking about the colour of the described organism?

Such a replacement could best be done in three steps:

1. Change the template to accept both a "color" and a "taxobox_color" parameter.
2. Change all instances of the template (using a bot, presumably; there are almost 30,000 taxoboxes on wikipedia).
3. Remove the old "color" parameter.

Good idea? Eugène van der Pijll 14:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have to admit I was once tripped up by it too in my early days. It seems like a lot of hassle to change for little gain though. Also I dont like the name "taxobox_color" (it's still too vague). We could actually remove the tag completely and get the colour from the kingdom, but it would introduce a lot of difficult-to-maintain template code. Otherwise how about just "box_colour"? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It also is a lot of hassle to correct all the wrong colors. I have just corrected all remaining errors (~50, I think) from a previous database dump; I will check in a few days how many new errors there are, so that we can get an idea of the size of the problem. But some of the wrong colors were over a month old (for example the one on Cucumber), and uunrecognized colors make the box look really ugly.

Eliminating the parameter is difficult, as there is more than one way to specify the kindom (e.g. "[[Plantae]]" vs. "[[Plant]]ae" vs. "[[Plant|Plantae]]" vs. "[[Plant]]ae<br>monocots"), and they have to be checked every time the colour is used in the taxobox (at least 8 times). Eugène van der Pijll 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also see some editors who understand it controls the box color, but don't know that there's a significance to it. So they go ahead and change it for aesthetic reasons. Any way to make it clearer that the colors are set by kingdom would help. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Dutch Wikipedia, we now have a parameter {{{type}}}. In this way, |type=dier produces the colour for animals (pink), |type=plant produces plant colour (lightgreen), etc. This also enabled us to set other variables which had to do with different formats in different groups (for example, in authority notation, which is different among groups governed by different Codes). Maybe this is also an idea for en:. Ucucha 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love a change like this. Nearly my only edits to animal articles on my watchlist are fixing the colors. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewamp design

Even is todays infoboxes are a derivate for the taxobox, the taxobox havn't developed much latly, so I have remade it, found at User:AzaToth/Taxobox. it look more like a normal infobox _→AzaToth 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to emphasize the words "genus", "family" etc. The astronomers do that in their infoboxes and the result doesn't really work, in my opinion. I see that you've removed the colons and lost some important centering as well. Those changes I would argue against. What do you see as the specific improvements? --Yath 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "important centering", I havn't changed any centering at all. More specific improvements is that it's designed in style to other infoboxes, the color is defined by a 'type parameter and some reducing of the compleixty of the design. _→AzaToth 23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything inside a colored band, such as "{{{name}}}" and "Scientific classification", is not centered in your version. And designing it to match other infoboxes is not in and of itself very compelling, because many other infoboxes (such as the astronomy ones I mentioned) have serious defects. Conformity would be nice, but not at the price of duplicating all that bold text. --Yath 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is centered. th.infobox is centered by default. _→AzaToth 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of non-centered text. Note how "Scientific classification" is left-justified. --Yath 08:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I see it: http://imagesocket.com/view/centeredce8.png _→AzaToth 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Yath's complaints, the "conforming" infobox outline/dividers clashes with the color scheme used by taxoboxes, and is difficult for folks with colorblindness. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by '"conforming" infobox outline/dividers'? As I'm using the same color scheme as the original Taxobox. _→AzaToth 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are using the conforming one, not the thin black line. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The "conforming" code part is making this a child of "infobox". Please don't do this. I will fight tooth and nail against it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So the taxobox isn't an infobox? _→AzaToth 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Only in the informal sense that it's a box of information. No, it is not of the class infobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

?Amoebozoa
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Amoebozoa

The current taxobox doesn't give any thin black lines on my system, and actually looks worse than the infobox border. If we need a particular look, it should probably be specified, and we could do that overtop the infobox class so that people can customize other aspects. Is there any reason not to take this approach? For instance, how close is this sample to how the tables are supposed to look? Josh

Amoebozoa
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Amoebozoa

Looks like thin black lines to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In AOL the borders are not thin black lines but uneven grey lines. Although in FireFox they display correctly, of course. Mgiganteus1 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot. Mgiganteus1 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! Looks very different from mine.... and yes, I use Firefox. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to topic

If we are trying to get back into topic, I have changed my proposal a bit now, and here is a look of the changes:

Old		New
Amoebozoa Amoeba proteus Scientific classification Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Amoebozoa Lühe, 1913 emend. Subgroups Mycetozoa (slime moulds) Archamoebae Tubulinea Flabellinea Uncertain placement Acanthopodida Stereomyxida etc.	→	Amoebozoa Amoeba proteus Scientific classification Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Amoebozoa Lühe, 1913 emend. Subgroups Mycetozoa (slime moulds) Archamoebae Tubulinea Flabellinea Uncertain placement Acanthopodida Stereomyxida etc.

_→AzaToth 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you've mixed up the line styles, lost the "?" in the title section, made it wider, and bolded and shifted the taxon ranks. All of these issues need to be addressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

About the ?, dunno where it went, I'll add it. about the width, 23en is the de facto standard width for an infobox, and by using that width, it fits better to wikipedia as a whole. Why I keep the ranks to be left aligned, is that people usually have the habit to read left → right, they look bold because they are defined at titles now, not ordninary cells (makes it easier for blind people to comprehend the infobox) _→AzaToth 11:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

200px is the standard width for a taxobox; that's the standard size of the images in them. Larger images will push the taxobox bigger, but the taxobox shouldn't be larger than the picture. Non-bold ranks is standard because they are not the subject of the article. And the current standard of the ranks is sdtill left → right, so I don't see what you're trying to improve by shifting them farther from the info they are linked to. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also note that the ranks should not be bold because they are not the information being presented. And because there is no need for them to be bold. Editors need to understand that prominent elements of a web page need to be kept uncommon, lest we desensitize readers to such things and lose their value altogether. I mean if we bold every taxon, we'll have increase the visibility of the featured element "Amoebozoa" a bit. Like making it bright orange on a pale blue background. And on each side we could put animated GIFs of arrows pointing inward. And so forth.--Yath 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good change: some beveling around the title is gone

Bad: forced wider, bold ranks, ranks moved up against the left edge, help link gone

Neutral: border is gray

--Yath 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bevel

I only just noticed it with the comparison, but it looks heaps better without the bevelled edges around the title box. What is the reason for the bevelling (I don't know anything about colour blindness, but it is a perfectly valid reason if that is so)? Can we change it? I don't like any of the other changes. Thanks --liquidGhoul 12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with the removal of the bevel. I don't know how it got there in the first place. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed "display:block;" from my test taxobox, and it removes the bevel, but also the line on the right. Check out my test page. Any idea why? --liquidGhoul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your tests, but upon looking at it again, I think it must be something to do with the question mark. I don't know how that affects the border, but it isn't there anymore, and I only removed one thing! --liquidGhoul 00:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I remove "position:relative;" from the background style, and the replaced the line down the side. I also noticed that the question marks went to the top right corner of the article (where the FA star goes). Why don't we just right aling the question mark? Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a solution, and it can be seen on the above links to my test pages. Could people please see if it works for their browser/OS. It works on Firefox in Linux. Thanks --liquidGhoul 12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wunderbar! Firefox/XP checking in. Looks hokie-dokie-hay-oh-kay heeyah! (Don't mind me... I'm on 3 weeks with no coffee.....) UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to change it now, as there seems to be no objections. If anyone has technical issues with it, post here (or if admin, revert) and we will try and sort it out. If you have style issues, post here. Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --liquidGhoul 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colors

Every so often, I see reversions because of changes of the color of the taxobox. I know that they are differentiated by means of the Kingdoms, so why not try to set up a parameter that makes the Kingdom parameter influence the color parameter? —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion #color parameter above. You can't really use the existing regnum param. In the new design by AzaToth, there is a type parameter, which determines the color, which is one way to solve the problem. Eugène van der Pijll 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trend

I have noticed that when that large amount of work into changing the conservation status code, the trend was also included (as trend=). As a result, I have been adding it to the taxoboxes I create. However, it isn't coded in, and it is therefore not used by the taxobox. Was there a plan to use this data, and will we be able to include it somehow? Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eu interwiki

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Taxotaula infotaula. Thanks. Berria · (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Joelito (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status links... again

This must have been raised before but couldn't the individual conservation statuses be linked to the relevant page. So if the species is listed as Endangered the word endangered would be linked to Endangered_species. All of these separate status pages are linked in the Conservation_status template, so it is be easy to navigate between them already. Chris_huh^talk 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. However, the individual conservation status articles are not all in a great state. (Which is probably why your suggestion hasn't been done sooner). "Extinct", for example, makes little or no mention of "recent extinction" (i.e. what the IUCN defines "extinct" as) and Vulnerable species has little description at all. Also, none of the attached lists are anywhere near complete.—Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with Extinct is that it just talks about actual extinction, and isn't really designed as a description of the IUCN status. Maybe we could work making a page for each status (i know there already are them, but fill them out with more of what IUCN really describes them as). I don't think a list of species that fall under that status should be on the page as that would mean a large page and a lot of updating. Why couldn't there just be categories for each one that the taxobox automatically adds it to and then have a link from each status page to that category.

Having said that, i suppose we could actually just have the links in the taxobox go straight to the category, which will have a short description of the status at the top and a link to the full article. Chris_huh^talk 11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box border again

I've been saying this for a long time. Can we please change the box's border color to the standard #aaa Wikipedia color. The black border looks very harsh and inconsistent. Anybody agree? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't. The "standard" Wikipeia color is very difficult for color-blind, especially with the taxobox colors. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign proposal (from Village pump)

This discussion was copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

Hello! , I am faelomx and I have much style. Already in serious, Is not taxobox something sober with that color plain? … Because something does not have life that is “on the life”? … then it can here have a visual improvement and dynamic in taxobox… and… improving what there is it can be taxobox but beautiful of all wikis! :) OK? …. what seems to them? You hope that you like,… will like…

Faelomx 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - [talk me]

• This is probably best discussed on the talk page of the template you wish to improve. Also, if you want, you can add color definitions to your personal style sheet, and the template will appear colorful to you. (Radiant) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wiki in spanish do not understand that webpages has evolved and that they have remained in the past with respect to the style, english-wiki, is much colorful and much style, it is for that reason that my style in spanish-wiki seems that they do not like… that it suffers! :)
Faelomx 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - [talk me]

It's colourful. I'm not sure if it fits in the current style of Wikipedia. Do you have the source of this template somewhere? It looks like a complicated template, so I'd like to check if it works in all browsers. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Eugène van der Pijll: Yes it is colourful, no very colourful, ...maybe in pastel colors? about the browsers... run!!, 'cause this template it will use 5 CSS class, in pink, in yellow, in gray, in green & in blue... only. greetings , Faelomx 12:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. Can you clarify? (Lo siento, no comprendo su comentario pasado. ¿Puede usted clarificar? Si usted necesita, trate usted a responder en inglés, y entonces en español) —Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is incredibly attractive, yes, please just write in Spanish. The colors are not such a big deal, even using our own colors, it would be a lovely visual presentation style wise for our taxoboxes. IMO. KP Botany 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I find our current design quite ugly, but this one, while very attractive, is amazingly off putting and a very poor fit with wikipedia's style. I would prefer to make it more simple rather than like this colourful monstrosity.. like infoboxes found elsewhere on wikipedia.. e.g. see Capcom and imagine the infobox as a taxobox. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Colorful monstrosity? Well, the colors are used to code for kingdom, though, and they are rather useful. When I, rarely, get an organism from the Random Article generator, a single glance at the taxobox instantly tells me, if the name is completely unfamiliar, something about the organism. The infobox you showed is busy text that must be perused--the idea behind the taxobox is to arrange information systematically to facilitate the quickest retreaval. I don't see how the infobox you linked to did this in a way that the current taxoboxes and this new design don't--please elaborate.

In spite of the many problems with taxoboxes, and my many frustrations with them, they do achieve their purpose, and were well-thought-out initially. KP Botany 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[EN]Yes!, only this is a sample, you will be able to contribute but ideas to improve it. But for me I design this "pretty templatezz", but it is not obligatory, we can put to us in common, to do “global desing”.

[ES]No hace falta que sea igual que ésta, sino podemos debatir sobre el mejor diseño y listo!

Faelomx 10:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Translation of above: It's not necessary that the template look just like this, but we can instead debate over the best design).

But do you have the source code? We need to make sure it works in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc. (Pero, tiene Ud. el código CSS? Es necesario que el código funciona in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc.) (y lo siento por mi español malo) —Mets501 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty. I may be alone in this, but I like the solid color as opposed to just having the color in little bands at the top. If the taxoboxes were color-coded (a good idea) it would make sense to have the color be as prominent as possible. I also like the rounded edges and, basically, everything. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I designed this one taxobox, thinking about the present one but improving it:

• Cleared corners & rounded edges.
• degraded bgcolor.
• scientific Name under the common name.

Try it!!!, see a prototype of this taxobox in a article here | here all codes and more...
Faelomx 09:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your prototype doesn't seem to work for me. I'm using Internet Explorer 6. The infobox is cut in half. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have IE 6 and it works just fine for me, so it's not the browser that's at issue with ONUnicorn's viewing. KP Botany 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Try what? all I can see is an image of said taxobox, and some text encloased in some soft of template, where is the code for this taxobox? where can we see it in action? do you have a running example anywhere? _→AzaToth 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's just an image. Yes, need a coded one to check, not an image!KP Botany 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status

Tyrannosaurus Fossil range: Late Cretaceous
Conservation status
Very very dead (an asteroid hit me)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Family: Tyrannosauridae
Binomial name
Tyrannosaurus rex

I've put the conservation status in its own section and added a diagramatic graphic thing. The diagram is slightly different if the taxon was evaluated with the old IUCN system (e.g. Orca) or the new system (e.g. Trocaz Pigeon). (The "status_system = iucn2.3" field that Beastie Bot was adding to taxoboxes was in anticipation of adding this graphic. It defaults to the new system.) If people hate the whole thing, it can be reverted. I don't add the graphic to extinct species (eg Golden Toad) because it would be in poor taste. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 09:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This change has created a very bland conservation status section for fossil species, as it simply lists "Fossil" in plain text under a new heading, which to me is less aethetically pleasing than having it in unobtrusive small text within the main taxobox header (see Tyrannosaurus as an example). Any way to spruce this up, or at least increase the amount of information contained in this new section? Off the top of my head, combing fossil and extinct may work, e.g. Extinct (fossil). Combining the fossil range section into the conservation status section would be kind of cool, especially if a timeline diagram could be incorporated in place of the threat level diagram.Dinoguy2 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another problem: it makes taxoboxes with images that are smaller than the width of the new image display a white margin round the species image and/or range map - not very pretty (a few examples: European Robin, Basking shark, Bald Eagle, Ring-tailed Lemur, Ocelot) Yomangani^talk 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard width for the taxobox image tends to be 200px. The conservation diagram seems to be wider than this.Dinoguy2 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the image width problem (the status diagrams were set to 200px too, but had padding, which is now removed). As for the fossil status.. can't we just remove the status altogether? it seems unnecessary? there is already fossil range. Otherwise, you can just put whatever you like in there. If it's not a known code, then it defaults to whatever you write in the status field (see example) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem removing Fossil status altogether, but there are hundreds of pages that use it. If somebody could make the code "status = fossil" produce something like "Extinct (fossil)" or simply combine it with "status = ex", this might be a better solution. Or, if possible, just have the "status = fossil" code null the whole Conservation status section, since fossil animals don't fall within any ranking system like the IUCN anyway, that I know of.Dinoguy2 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've changed the text to "Extinct (fossil)" for now. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, except you misspelled Extinct as Exinct ;) Dinoguy2 01:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Extinct birds for example uses three different statusses for extinct. Just "Extinct" when it is since 1500 AD (IUCN), "Prehistoric" for Late Quaternary prehistoric times and (usually) known from specimens not completely fossilized, and "Fossil" for species known only from fossils. I would suggest these three different ones, OR use for all "Extinct", but than also "Extinct (prehistoric)", like it now is with fossil species. And useing the new graphic for all IUCN status, including the extinct one. Peter Maas\^talk 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to represent one of these timelines in 200px?: Geologic_timescale#Graphical_timelines —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to hide the Conservation Status when there's a fossil range, but haven't quite got it working (some white space keeps appearing).. anyone want to try getting it to work: try editing User:Pengo/taxobox and see the results at User:Pengo/taxotest. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Surely both fossil range and conservation status are important for extant species that are the only member of higher categories (i.e. White-tailed Rat). --Aranae 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the conservation status image to be just about the primary focal point of the entire article in species articles with no images. I think it would ideally be smaller and less obtrusive. --Aranae 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be the focal point, it is more important than anything else in the taxobox ;). I don't think it would be possible to do it without losing information. I don't find it is ugly, so I have no problem with it. --liquidGhoul 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a plain black-and-white version that could be switched to on an article-by-article basis? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would an graphic for "extinct" species be in poor taste? I don't see why. I think when you use these graphics for the IUCN categories, you need also one of the Extinct status, as it is one of the IUCN categories. I would also keep the other extinct statusses, like fossil. Peter Maas\^talk 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is my thinking.. The status device shows a landscape of the categories that are possible for the species, and highlights its current location on that landscape — What its category is versus what it could be. So say, an endangered species like the Maleo may eventually become critically endangered, or may go the other way and become only "near threatened". Even a "least concern" species may one day become endangered. In contrast, an extinct species is extinct. Crichtonian cloning and Lazarus resurrection aside, there is no such landscape for an extinct species. It will never be critically endangered, or vulnerable, or near threatened, or least concern, or extinct in the wild. It is extinct and will continue to be. Adding an "extinct" graphic showing these other categories would be akin to adding a range map to the dodo, or having an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is. Personally, I'd consider that to be in poor taste. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with that, except that many, many species have come back from an extinct classification. It is not fact that many of the smaller animals/plants etc. are extinct, it is just assumed from the lack of finding them. It has happened quite a few times with Australian frogs. --liquidGhoul 05:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I did make reference to Lazarus taxa above, however species which may be extinct but it isn't certain are generally listed as Critically Endangered (CR) or "Possibly Extinct" by the IUCN. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is, would indeed be poor tast, I agree with you on that. But I disagree when it comes to the extinction status or range maps (that show their former range). That is only informative and educational in my opinion. It shows facts. Not poor taste in my opinion. Peter Maas\^talk 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New taxobox is misleading for endangered species not on the IUCN Red List

There are plenty of species that are considered vulnerable, threatened, rare, endangered or even critically endangered, but do not appear on the Red List. The old taxobox format permitted such species to be listed as "Endangered" (for example), where "endangered" might be defined in some way other than the IUCN definition. The new taxobox format includes a IUCN-specific graphic that incorrectly implies that these species have been classified against the IUCN definition.

Consider for example the featured article Banksia brownii. This is listed as "Endangered" under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, yet does not appear on the Red List. When the article was featured, the taxobox simply said "Conservation Status: Endangered", which was entirely appropriate. Now it contains an IUCN-specific graphic which (a) incorrectly implies that it has been classified by the IUCN; and (b) incorrectly implies that "endangered" is used in accordance with the IUCN definition. As a consequence I have had to remove the conservation status from the taxobox. This is not acceptable.

Hesperian 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and I'm working on it... For now you can do

| status = Endangered (EPBC 1999)

But i'm working on a better method using the "status_system" field —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Hesperian 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed properly (as you already noticed). See this diff for example. I almost didn't have to touch the taxobox template for the new images to work, btw. To choose the EPBC system do this:

| status = EN
| status_system = EPBC

Once any bugs are worked out, I'll look to other conservation status systems to include. The colours are those used by Birdlife International's choices for IUCN categories (as suggested by Dysmorodrepanis), and I'd like to update the regular IUCN category images to use the same colours/style too, unless anyone objects (but that belongs in a new thread). And it's "Status = Delisted" for delisted. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction

The Extinct status should direct to Extinction.

Done. NCurse _work 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessively rigid taxoboxes

Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae

"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Wikipedia: Article on Tilia which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mentioned the possibility of using dual classifications in taxoboxes on the WP:TOL taxobox discussion page and it was soundly rejected already. I do have another suggestion along the same lines that I will make, though. I'll add you to my user page to rememeber to discuss it with you. I'll check you move proposal. KP Botany 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox change?

Not being familiar much with templates, I came across a difficulty while trying to disambiguate Biological type. Is there a way that "type" links in taxoboxes could link directly to Type (botany) or Type (zoology) as appropriate and not to the Biological type disambiguation page? (See Asteraceae, for an example.) Thanks for any help, Figma 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ugh! another Bryaism. These two articles should be united, not ambiguated. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neatness

Is it possible to prevent the pink bars from spilling into the borders? JMK 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need new taxobox template status: "Probably extinct"

This issue came up when describing the status of the Chinese river dolphin, which is believed to be extinct or likely so. 204.52.215.107 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "extinct" be best... and then explain further in the article? ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You can use "status = PE" (which stands for "possibly extinct"). Note that the IUCN currently treats "possibly extinct" as "critically endangered". It's very sad to lose this dolphin. I've removed the "editprotected" tag, but if "PE" isn't good enough then go ahead and put it back. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

can someone please add the heabrew interwiki? here it is:

he:תבנית:מיון

thanks --89.138.114.45 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. interwiki links can be added by anyone to Template:Taxobox/doc by the way. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status image using Birdlife International colours

Whooping Crane
Conservation status
Endangered (IUCN)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves

Kemp's Ridley
Researchers collecting Kemp's Ridley eggs
Conservation status
Critically endangered (IUCN)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia

If no one has any objections, I'd like to change the graphics for the conservation status images. I've updated them to be a bit cleaner, and use the colours used by Birdlife International (the official assessor of Red List categories for birds). I've already used this look for statuses assigned by the Australian government (e.g. see Banksia brownii), and so now the plan is to extend it to IUCN Red List categories, and also to NatureServe rankings.

Also you might notice I'd like to actually note which actual ranking system is being used within the description. This would default to being left off (as it is now) unless it was made explicit with, for example, "| status_system = iucn3.1".

They're circles to make the statuses more distinct from each other, as some don't slide into each other (namely from CR a status may jump EW straight to EX, and likewise LR/cd may be skipped). —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 14:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (Happy xmas)

Ah, nice. I like the circles better than the continuum; it fits better with the assigned status. And I see you have a 2.3 and 31 version. In my edits, some folks have raised a concern that we only use the IUCN, while there are other systems out there. Most particularly, it is an issue when the IUCN is silent but there is another system that has information, or when the IUCN says something, but a more localized system says something stronger; the latter is particularly true in regards to Australian marsupials, as Australia has its own system. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See my post immediately below - BirdLife has adopted the "CR(pe)" category which is rather useful (denoting species where research is required to determine whether they actually exist). It is not (yet) used for anything but birds, but can be applied at the author's discretion for other taxa as well that are suspected but not verified to be extinct. As it is a subcategory of CR, with the proposed change in the template, it links where it should link. Dysmorodrepanis 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Having the CR image for PE lead to revert wars and general confusion for Baiji and basically doesn't work.

Another possible image is this one:

e.g. (see baiji below) What do people think of the o?o graphic? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 09:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji
Conservation status
Critically Endangered, Possibly Extinct
Scientific classification

[edit] Edit: Conservation status

Please change to:

|PE|pe=[[Image:Status_iucn3.1_CR.svg|200px]]<br>[[Critically endangered]], possibly extinct{{{category|[[Category:Critically endangered species]]}}}

Maybe the 3.1 tag needs to be added as with other categories, but "PE" is not formalized by the IUCN (yet); it is fairly likely to be adopted in the 4.0 criteria but probably not earlier.

Result: it should display the status image; check for example in Eskimo Curlew ("PE" is a subcategory of "CR").

Yes, PE is a subcategory of CR. No, the CR image does not fit, as it gives no indication that the species may be "possibly extinct". (see above) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status categorisation

I've been reorganising the conservation status categories over at Category:Species by IUCN Red List category. Previously, most species were not categorised by their conservation status unless they were endangered. I've created a couple of categories for Near Threatened and Low Risk so that we can categorise pretty much every species in this way. I tried changing this template so that if an species were designated Near Threatened then the Near Threatened category would be added to the article automatically but this didn't seem to work. Could someone familiar with the template help? --Oldak Quill 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Type species

Is there a reason why the type species appears under "Type Species" (i.e. both words capitalised), rather than "Type species", which would be more consistent with the other headings ("Scientific classification", "Binomial name", "Conservation status", etc.)? If not, I'll change it. --Stemonitis 12:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a typo. I'll fix. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Character

This template appears to have an '!' in the header bar. It looked like vandalism/test stuff, but I can't fix it. On the other hand, it looks like noone else could have broken it. Does this character have a use? If not, could someone remove it? --Mdwyer 18:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is intentional. It is a link to "How to read a taxobox". See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Information_link. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. So it is. Well, I feel a little dumb. :) Thank you! --Mdwyer 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

...umm.. the 'i' was really just a temporary measure until we came up with something better. hmm..... —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this tiny blue Info icon: --Mdwyer 05:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no way (I know) to make that image a link to the explanation page instead of the image description page at Image:Information-silk.png. Eugène van der Pijll 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is now: see mw:Extension:ImageMap. I can't get the positioning right yet, but it looks good anyway (see right). -- Eugène van der Pijll 09:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Example

Ok, done. I've done it with a simple redirect instead of this stylesheet tomfoolery. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know you could do that! Cool! Eugène van der Pijll 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Me neither :) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a great trick! --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! KP Botany 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related suggested change?

Instead of using a redirect and whatnot, why not use {{click}}? {{click|image=Information-silk.png|link=Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox|height=16px|width=16px}} gives

. And seeing that it may not work in all browsers, the redirect image could be utilized still, just as a backup.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, {{click}} does not seem to work in the talk space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"It may not work as expected for all browsers." Oh, you said that. But if the redirect works, why should we then also use {{click}}? -- Eugène van der Pijll 08:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. Bad idea when I was playing around with the template myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Using it was my original thought, but fortunately I couldn't remember the name of the template :) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imagemap

I really think it would be better off to have this link performed using Imagemap; doing it with an image redirect can't be good practice. Rawling4851 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think this is preferable indeed, as it allows selecting the link also to those users that can't click the image (e.g. screen readers and some cell phones). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor avoid redirect thing

Hey, regarding the little image that when clicked leads to Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox, would it be more effective to use the {{click}} template for this job, instead of having the image be a redirect page? (Or, failing that, some like this, if it ever gets off the ground...) 69.138.161.186 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that's an interesting workaround. As I understand it, {{click}} is somewhat controversial, since it tends to interfere with some web browsers (usually we mention text-only browsers, but other options include things like BlackBerries and Sidekicks, and other more "basic" browsers). I'm not entirely opposed to the change, but do bear that in mind; if there's some discussion, first, I'd be more open to it. Either way, a good suggestion made in good faith, and I always appreciate those. Luna Santin 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I mention it only because I noticed it (as a matter of fact, I didn't know you could actually do that with uploaded images, that is, have them be redirect pages). I think another concern about the click template was that it would be difficult to actually have a link to the image file, which in this case doesn't matter, since it's a redirect anyway. Oh well. Just pointing it out so you all can discuss it. 69.138.161.186 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think ImageMap is more usable than redirect in this case. As I've said above, if you can't click the image (e.g. I can't do that with my cell phone and I'm sure there are other cases as well), this icon means nothing. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While the 'image redirect' method was actually fairly good I went ahead and converted this to use 'imagemap'. Clicking the icon will now go directly to the 'How to read' page rather than through a redirect. --CBD 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(A just for fun side note) Oh man. I was just fiddling with the flag templates and took a quick look at the job queue. It was over shocking 30,000. Then I asked myself: what the heck did I do... Then I looked into recent template changes and found your taxobox change and everything became clear :-). I wonder when we will get a decent tool to inspect the job queue. --Ligulem 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry for giving you a fright. Amazing how much such a tiny change can touch. --CBD 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds and videos

Maybe you read the news about a site with 50000 sound and video recording of animals.

I think we should add this to the taxobox. The site often has multiple listings for a single anmial so I don't think we could link direct to the recording, but maybe we could link to the search page. We would have a row called 'Media'. What do you think? Ariel. 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We've generally kept to the notion of not having external links in the taxobox, as it is primarily informational and navigational. Put media links in an external links section. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem in theory with using having external links in the taxobox (although there are none so far), but I agree with UtherSRG that this resource would be better in the external links. Also the audio files on the site are in a very proprietary format (RealPlayer) which shouldn't be encouraged. —Pengo 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomist's Name

I think the taxonomist's name should appear in the abbreviated form, common in the scientific literature, and without parentheses, which should only include the year of description. The abbreviated format should link to the article regarding the specific taxonomist. Reasoning:

1. Such a format, together with the binomial name, gives the complete and exact scientific format, to designate a species. The template is the best place to expose the readers to this standard way of writing, common among all scientists and scientific literature. This way there is also a match between the format in the article and in scientific articles.
2. Readers who will be confused by the abbreviations, can clarify the matter immediately by clicking on the abbreviation and reaching the article regarding the taxonomist.

Gidip 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The current format is how the authority appears in scientific literature. No change is needed. Is there a specific taxobox you have an issue with? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What is "the current format"? Is it the abbreviated form or the full family name? There is an incosistency among different articles. See, for example, lion (full name), Magnolia grandiflora (abbreviated). I suggest a common format for all articles - the abbreviated name, linked to the taxonomist's article. Gidip 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Botanists use abbreviations and zoologists full name plus date. Find two organisms in the same kingdom, not different ones as an example, because the kindgsoms are covered under different codes. It is utterly common in the scientific literature to find plant names with authorities abbreviated. KP Botany 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks, now it makes sense to me. Gidip 21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chromosome number

More genomic information should be in this template. Specifically, I would like to see the number chromosomes (monoploid number and euploid number). The only discussions I see on this page regarding genomes and chromosomes is brief mention at #Links to NCBI Taxonomy browser. Comments? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The taxobox is not meant to be the repository of everyone favorite information about the taxa. It is intended as a quick reference and navigation aid on taxonomy, picture and range. Anything else should be placed only within the text of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many species do not have this information in the article (for example, neither Gorilla nor any of the species and subspecies include this information), and in many cases it would be difficult to implement such information into an article. It may not be easy to find an appropriate place in an article to state "Gorilla gorilla has 24 pairs of chromosomes"—where would you put it? Classification? The lead section? It would be even more difficult to go through the thousands of species on Wikipedia and to smoothly include a sentence for all of them. Having two simple fields in the taxobox is a quick and sensible way to display the information, and doing this would be a much easier task. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a terrible idea. Chromosome number is a short, clear, defined piece of information (unlike diet or behavioural things that have made their way into other language taxoboxes), and has a relationship to taxonomy (although it's far from a barcode). A number by itself is not really enough though. You need n=24 (or 2n=24), as well as how the sex chromosomes work (XY, XO, WZ). And then what about the number of base pairs...? A full section (like ==Genetics==) would be preferred, but I assume there's a lot of species where the number of chromosomes is known but not much else. So, if it were to go into the taxobox, where would it fit in? And how many species would be able to use it? —Pengo 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's of interest at the species level, as I don't believe that most species are determined from chromosome number. Genera, on the other hand, may be a different story. I know that the gibbon genera were split from Hylobates on the basis of chromosome number. That information is not best handled by a small notation in the taxobox of the genera, and certainly not on the species level. It's best handled and meaningful in prose in the article body. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous species where there are multiple chromosomal forms within the species. Examples are pocket gophers, mouse-like hamsters, and blind mole rats. Also, in many instances the number of functional is more important than 2N. These things vary widely be species and should really be addressed in the text. --Aranae 07:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the chromosome number even known for many species (aside from extinct forms)? If the chromosome number is significant, or even mildly interesting, it should be discussed in the text. -- Donald Albury 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're only considering animals. Do we even know how sex is determined in, say, the gametophytes of mosses? Do we know the chromosome numbers of dinoflagellates? Also, many organisms (fungi, bryophytes) have a dominant haploid life cycle. Like animals reserve haploidy for sexual reproduction, so these organisms reserve diploidy for sexual reproduction. Werothegreat 13:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not appropriate to be added to the taxobox, as the taxoboxes are somewhat problematic, and need to contain a finite amount of information--but I'm not real set on this. However, an article on chromosome number would be good. There's a poorly done list (common names mostly, except Drosophila melanogaster, the one model organism commonly called by its common name by budding biologists the world over, although known as Drosophila melanogaster in the literature, of course) that strangely doesn't include a chromosome number for Arabidopsis thaliana, one of the few plant chromosome numbers that folks actually know and pay attention to. I think that chromosome number should be included in the articles where it is known, particularly where it is interesting (Equisetum). I'm beginning to think the taxobox template itself is too limiting. KP Botany 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And then there is polyploidy. -- Donald Albury 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn plants and horticulturists. It's that pesky man again, I just know it, he must have something to do with this. KP Botany 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation one more time!

Question: can fungi/plants/everything else be endangered? Is there a conservation program for slime molds? Werothegreat 17:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good God Almighty, do you think slimemolds need conserving? Yes, any type of organism can be endangered, but I've never seen a fungi category, nor a protists category, on federal or state lists. There is a Wikiproject Fungi, somewhere, they probably are the ones to ask, or post on the Slime mould discussion page. Let me know what you find out. 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are several species of the fungal genus Hygrocybe which are deemed to be endangered. Problem is, we know so littel about fungi. cheers Cas Liber 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Many many plants are endangered. Outside of plants and animals, there's not a lot of research done into imperilment. There are 3 species endangered fungi species listed by the IUCN. There is only one protista (Vanvoorstia bennettiana) [7] which is listed, but it is extinct, rather than endangered, but in theory others could be considered endangered. No bacteria or viruses are listed by the IUCN, and many countries' own lists explicitly exclude them from consideration. —Pengo 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A related red alga (protista) is "probably critically endangered": Vanvoorstia incipiens (mentioned with the Vanvoorstia bennettiana listing) —Pengo 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Actually it wouldn't be wrong to call those "protista" plants, even if they're listed as "protista" by the IUCN —Pengo 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning fungi, some European states did more: In Czech Republic (and others) some fungi species are protected by conservation programs - see this list of protected species which includes e.g. some species of Amanita, Boletus, Geastrum. There are also Red Lists of endangered fungi in several states, e.g. Switzerland, Sachsen (Germany), Steiermark (Austria). --Franz Xaver 00:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:How_to_read_a_taxobox

This 'How to read a taxobox' guide needs to be updated now that the conservation statuses are below the image. I was just going to put a new version of the same species used (Colorado Potato Beetle) but that doesn't use the conservation image at all. So a better example would probably be needed, i think it might as well be a well known species and was thinking orca, or a cetacean one would be good. The only thing is that some of those have size comparisons as the second image and i am not sure if that would be a good thing (ie to show off that some pages have this) or not (ie too much info on guide page). What do you think? Chris_huh^talk 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No shame in editing a taxobox down to size and using it for the example. E.g. remove the second image and screenshot the preview. By the way, the vast majority of cetaceans have not been reassessed by the IUCN for some time and still use the 1994 categories (which includes LR/cd). It's not really a problem though. —Pengo 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support for variety rank

I've just written an article on Banksia armata var. armata, and discovered that the taxobox doesn't support the rank of variety. I can't for the life of me think why not. I propose to edit the taxobox template to support this rank. I would already have done so by now, but for a bright red header shouting at me to make sure I am following the "protected page guidelines". Are there any objections to this? (If someone with extensive experience with this template wants to handle this, that's just fine with me). Hesperian 12:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, allow someone with extensive experience to handle it. The issue is that there are thousands of taxoboxes on Wikipedia, and every edit affects every one of these, so there are some specific rules about it--so I've heard. But it sounds like an invitation for someone with experience to be required to do the work.

I think this was just an omission when taxoboxes were created (you, of all people, know the animal bias), leaving out variety as a rank, that is. KP Botany 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would ask for User:AzaToth's assistance, he is one of the people who understands templates the best. JoshuaZ 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I know how to fix it, it's not difficult, but am reluctant to be too bold in this case. I'll ask AzaToth, and wait a few days to see if he or anyone else is willing to take responsibility for it.

While we're on the subject, it kind of annoys me that autonyms like the above for which the full name is "Banksia armata (R.Br.) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele var. armata" are effectively presented in the taxobox as "Banksia armata var. armata (R.Br.) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele". But I don't expect anyone else to care about this, and I don't fight battles I can't win. :-(

Hesperian 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This irritates the heck out of me, too. We've done original research on botanical nomenclature, shades of .... KP Botany 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I cannot edit the template, as I'm not an admin, but, it would be a rather simple edit, just add following code somewhere in the template at an appropriate place:

|-valign=top
{{#if:{{{variety|}}}|
{{!}} Variety
{{!}} {{{variety}}}
}}

_→AzaToth 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done I've added the following:

|-valign=top
{{#if:{{{variety|}}}|
{{!}} Variety:
{{!}} <span style="white-space: nowrap">{{{variety}}}</span>}}

I added it after subspecies since the rank is below species but not above or below subspecies. Is there need for subvariety as well? And authority? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 23:40Z

I'm not aware of any subvarieties. Yes, there should be a "variety_authority" argument. Hesperian 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:41Z

• I asked because of Subvariety. There's also Form (botany), the level below subvariety. You're probably right though; if there's no article on a specific subvariety then we don't need it in the Taxobox template. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:41Z

• • I agree that we should defer worrying about subvariety and form until someone writes an article that calls for it. On a related note, when I get around to writing an article on Banksia dallaneyi subsp. dallaneyi var. mellicula (and I will eventually), we'll need to look at whether the current choice between "binomial name" and "trinomial name" is sustainable - is there such a thing as a "quadrinomial name", or should these two headings be merged into "full name"? Hesperian 03:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is also a subforma. They can wait. KP Botany 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space for "other" common names

Can I ask that we please include space for extra common names, such as "Hedge Sparrow" and "Hedge Accentor" for Dunnock, at the foot of the taxobox (in a clearly delineated section, of course)? As and when tools are available for parsing or scraping taxoboxes, that will make such names easier to find. Andy Mabbett 18:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Andy, there are simply too many common names for some plants to realistically include all of them in the taxobox. This should be left for one common name, while all the others should be listed either in the first paragraph, or for large scale geographic variation, in a section discussing where they are applicable. KP Botany 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is a fair one, but I don't see how it supports your following statement. It seems to be "punishing" all for the "crimes" of a few. Why not limit it to, say, five, or a number decided by consensus on a case-by case basis? The other solutions you suggest do not meet the "scraping" use case I outlined. Andy Mabbett 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

If the goal is to make common names easier to scrape (identify with automated tools), there are other possible solutions. Already common names generally listed within the article and bolded and have redirects (or should), and there could be used as clues. Or, to make it more explicit we could have a template that simply bolds a common name, e.g:

"...also known as {{Common name|Bull kelp}}..."

which would render: "...also known as Bull kelp...". Thoughts? This doesn't address the issue of species with a huge number of common names (although a large list of common names would better suit a section of the article text rather than the taxobox); and also there could be a problem of large number of permutations (where each word or phrase within the common name has variations), but it's a start. Thoughts? —Pengo 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That expects the parser to be Wikipedia-specific. I was considering generic parsers, such as (but not only) those using the proposed "Species" microformat (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats and links from there). Templated data is easier to serve, and easier to parse. Andy Mabbett 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The template could easily be adapted to use a microformat when the article is displayed. If there isn't an agreed on microformat now, it could be added later too using the template. —Pengo 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what you're saying here; but my point is that microformats (for example - again, I'm also thinking of other possibilities) require known types of data to be in a wrapper; and it makes sense, on Wikipedia, for that wrapper to be the template/ generated table, rather then the whole page. There's a wider issue. too, in that putting standard kinds of data in a template helps users to quickly scan the page. That's why we have them in the first place. Try reversing the issue - why shouldn't the most-common vernacular names be in the taxobox? Andy Mabbett 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The main reasons it shouldn't be in there because in some cases there are too many to be comfortably displayed in the taxobox (as mentioned by KP Botany in the first reply), or they can often be too long, and because the common names are typically mentioned in the article anyway (as it stands) and are, by convention, in bold already in the main text so can be quickly found by people scanning the article. Putting the common names in the taxobox does not help (or hinder) using a microformat. Likewise, wikipedia-specific scrapers can just as easily check the taxobox or the main text for common names (assuming the template solution is used as above). So in sum, sure, why not. For many articles I'm sure a list of common names would be fine, as long as they're not required to be there. Common names wouldn't be so different from the lists of species in the taxobox of a genera. But if you think it will help scrapers or microformats, then you're mistaken, because a taxobox-neutral solution. It would be great if it were easier to decouple the data and the display of it on Wikipedia but really it isn't. —Pengo 08:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your "long winded" reply ;-). I think I've already addressed all of your points, except "Putting the common names in the taxobox does not help using a microformat", and I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion; in my experience of marking up microformats, it certainly would help, since (as I said above) they require (with the exception of the "include -pattern", which really wouldn't be suitable here) everything to be inside a wrapper (an HTML element, such as DIV or TABLE). Andy Mabbett 08:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As with many other proposals to put something more into the taxobox, no. The taxobox is to be used as a brief reference and navigational aid. For the most part, if the information isn't going to be linked, or if the presentation of the date is better served in the main text, then it shouldn't be in the taxobox. A list of common names won't be linked, and it will be in the main text, so it shouldn't be in the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have ignored each point I've made in favour of including common names in the taxobox (including their use as a "brief reference"). Would you care to address them? Andy Mabbett 11:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• (reply to UtherSRG) Umm.. Common names are pretty "referencey" just as synonyms are, which are in there already and aren't linked. Short lists of common names can take up too much of the first paragraph of articles. —Pengo 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Andy, don't be so set on only one solution. It's a valid point, being able to gather information from the articles, and that putting this information inside a wrapper facilitates this. Finding a way to make this happen should be our focus now. Taxoboxes were never designed to do this when it comes to common names of plants. So, let's post to TofL and see if someone has other ideas for how this can be done, as I think it's one of the things that needs to be done with biota articles. KP Botany 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "set" on one solution - I'm proposing one, and asking for reasons why it's been rejected. Happy to raise this on TofL (I've asked for responses here). Incidentally, vernacular names can be linked - not least to disambiguation pages. See also Lady's Slipper. Andy Mabbett 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it. Taxonomy is too complex already without trying to say that common names are taxonomic. We'll have the same common name attached to multiple taxoboxes, and no way to explain it within the taxobox. Or we'll have lists of 13 common names in some taxoboxes, pretty much taking away their original usefulness and making them articles unto themselves. If the common names are treated in the taxobox they may not be treated within the article which is where notations about common names can be put. The taxonomy of the scientific names (at least at lower levels) can stand alone, the common names cannot--they're not fly-by information. I don't see any good reasons for crowding taxoboxes with this information, namely lists of common names. We don't currently include scientific synonyms in the taxobox, much less all the common ones. KP Botany 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany makes some good points. I'd like to summarize and add some that others have made, as well as some of my own:

1. Common names are arguably not taxonomy.
   1. They convey no place in a hierarchy.
   2. They can be attached to multiple species or even supraspecific groups.
   3. There are no central sources for verifiability, except to the extent that common names in some groups and in some countries are standardized.
2. The number of common names for any given taxon can vary from none to a mind-numbing horde (the same is true of synonyms). An ideal treatment for a mind-numbing horde is a structured list or table in the article that includes their provenance and a reference for each.
3. There are ways of making common names machine-readable even in the article content.
4. Taxoboxes were originally intended to be human-readable, and machine-readability should not excessively impair that. To that end, extreme care should be taken before adding new categories of information. The number of useful categories exceeds the limits of an easily human-readable taxobox, which means that of necessity many useful things must be left out. The current procedure seems to be to add useful items in priority order, so that, for example, conservation status worked its way in and is effectively grandfathered, although some arguably more useful category may never make it in. IMO the only appropriate approach to this is to rigorously define the purposes of a taxobox before allowing more items.

--Curtis Clark 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's exactly what [User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] had in mind, although from his examples I'm guess it's not far from it, but we should have a space just for standardized common names (by country/authority). That would be useful aid to taxonomy, and be informative. I certainly would not know that bird names are standardized from any bird article I recall reading, and while I know fish names were recently standardized in Australia, I don't see articles mentioning it specifically. For example, the article Australasian snapper spends the first three paragraphs running through common mames for the fish without mentioning which is its legal common name in Australia. If I were looking to buy Snapper in Australia this would let me know that it was indeed the same species (fish markets don't use binomials). Ordinary vernacular names can be left to the article, but standardized common names would be useful for cross-referencing material (in ways that non-standardized ones are not). When running Beastie Bot, synonyms were extremely useful for matching species, while the name of the article naturally couldn't be used as much more than a minor clue, but standardized names would be useful (and would be useful to humans as well). —Pengo 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pengo, except that common names aren't standardized for everything and everywhere, they're country specific, and some countries don't have them. So, in the taxobox, you're suggesting we use the taxobox to list the common name for every country that has a standardized common name for the species, for every country that has a standardized common name in English for the species, for every country that has a standardized common name for its endemic species? In the United States we'd have USDA, and state official common names for a number of species, cosmopolitan weedy species might have 48-50 common names for a species NOT USDA listed, but listed in each state (non-agricultural weeds). Exactly how would you go about this? Common names are not standardized in every country, not standardized for every type of organism, and may run into the 3-digits for weedy species.

Or are you saying a dedicated space just for common names outside of the taxobox? Please clarify, and repost this suggestion on TofL, as I think Andy has made it clear he is only seeking input on his suggestion of putting the common names in the taxobox. An example taxobox might help clarify, if the first point, again, picking a troublesome species, such as a weed. KP Botany 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, but can you give a specific example please? Where could I find a list of 48 official state common names for milk thistle or for a species of dandelion? The obvious answer to the problem of "too many common names", however, is simply to restrict the "offical common names" field to animal taxoboxes (or specific orders) and to at least country-level standarisation, (unless the species is endemic only to a single state), and possibly also only to English-language standarisations. As an example Chrysophrys auratus. Imagine this in a taxobox:

Standardized names

• Squirefish (Fishbase) [8]
• Snapper (Australia) [9]

—Pengo 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem, imo, is making taxoboxes too variable, and this is what will happen, because essentially you're making rules that apply to everywhere but the United States, to all taxa but flowers, to only specific orders of animals, to only organisms endemic to one state only for US organisms, and only for countries that standardize common names. I know that in the USA fishermen use some type of standardized names for fish, as I read fisheries reports that have the standard common names listed--the fish are listed by these, not by their binomials.

New Zealand usually has two official common names for plants, and Maori taxonomy is not the same as Western taxonomy?

You CAN'T find a list of 48 official state common names for milk thistle because common names are NOT standardized in America. Each state either has an official common name, a prefered common name, no common name, translation of the binomial as a common name, the USDA common name, or the scientific name, or some combination of the preceding or more than one common name, all official, depending upon the state. The USDA has official common names for agricultural pests, the Forest Service uses some types of official common names, but looking at some USDA and USFS reports on some chaparral, these do not coincide.

Convolvulus arvensis L. is an example that crops to mind, however, I don't work with common names, and for good reason. This plant is known as field bindweed on its weed profiles in most US states, is called European morning glory in Iowa, creeping Jenny in Wisconsin, and the USDA lists these five synonyms: European bindweed, creeping jenny, field bindweed, morning glory, perennial morning glory, small-flowered morning glory. In spite of our article on the plant you will find all of these names in the literature about this noxious pest. So, for the taxobox we have 6 English-language common names on the USDA list, plus 3 for various states, and the USDA only lists the states for which this is a noxious weed. If the state hasn't filed a report on the weed's status, the common names might not be listed. For native flora, and there are plenty of plants that stretch from the eastern slope of the Sierra to the Atlantic Coast, the official common names are obtained from the state's floras, not from the USDA. And, USDA common names don't necessarily trump state common names, because common names are NOT standardized in the USA. KP Botany 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KP - adding common names to taxoboxes doesn't strike me as feasible. There are just too many of them, they are too variable, and only a minority of them have standardised common names, and those are locally specific. Take Attalea crassispatha - there are 10 common names for a species endemic to a small corner of Haiti...which had a population size of 25 in 1991. Granted, they were all variations on a single word, but it still illustrates the problem with common names. In Trinidad well-known plants tend to have three common names (one with Creole roots, one with Hindi roots, one with English roots). And then you have variations on each of them, and non-standardised spelling... (in Trinidad tree names are written "Bois", but in St. Lucia they are written "Bwa"). Guettarda 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly convinced that listing all common names for every species is not "feasible" in the taxobox. How about I just put in a field for listing standardized common names at a country or higher level, and it can be used when it's "feasible", and ignored when it's not. —Pengo 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But that would only be workable for species that are endemic to that single country. If a species is present in a country for which there is a "standard" common name, and another one in which there isn't one, then one country's common name is prioritised above the other. Why is Bufo marinus at Cane Toad, when you people so despise our crapaud? You don't want it in your country, give the article name back! :) Guettarda 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting comment, and something that this discussion brought up to me, naming articles after their weedy common names rather than their indigenous common names. Cane toad is certainly the most common common name in English for Bufo marinus, but it is not the common name used by English-speaking peoples in areas where it is indigenous rather than introduced or invasive. KP Botany 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, again, it simply adds mayhem to the taxobox. New users would have to know to only insert a common name if it's endemic, or to guess what is "feasible" and what is not. And does "feasible" have any taxonomic implications, since it's a taxobox, or does "feasible" like the common names have nothing to do with taxonomy? Once you have to make umpteen exceptions, create ambiguous rules, acknowledge that there are no straight-forward rules that can't be spelled out, and have to fall back on policies like "feasibility," which require OR on the part of an individual editor each time the policy is consider, I think you've really outdid the potential usefulness of what you want to accomplish.

Again, there are so many questions, and changes. You're also running into politics with American names, first of all, why should the USDA's common names for California plants, given that they are used predominantly for weeds, have precedence over California common names for California plants? This may be fine in countries where you have strong central governments, but us folks who like to believe we really are a republic, don't take kindly to having federal issues rammed down our throats (not what you're doing, but, really, this issue could wind up being touchy with US common names). So, for example, a plant that is endemic to North Carolina, and weedy in the west, has as its official common name, the USDA name, because of its agricultural problems. This may not even be the most common common name, but simply the official one.

I just don't see the justification for establishing a preference for federal and national weed listings for US plants, a the way to include common names for other countries. Also, for cosmopolitan plants, again, how many common names, or is this, too, the feasibility issue? KP Botany 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)