Wikipedia talk:How to read a taxobox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] I want to make one
Has anyone ever thought of making a taxonomy chart for products and services? Bmunden 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Very Nice!
Very nice! I'm glad someone finally added this to the taxoboxes. --User:Chinasaur
(Query moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Gdr 13:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC))
Is there a certain code to make taxobox? other than { { taxobox } } etc.
I agree. Very nice! Eperotao 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Classification, nomenclature, and science
A classification is most emphatically not a scientific hypothesis. It is not testable. All manner of splitting and lumping can be done even if everyone agrees on the shape of the phylogenetic tree and even if everyone agrees on whether or not to use which paraphyletic taxa. None of the three codes of Linnean nomenclature requires any science (such as phylogenetics) to be done before proposing a new classification. David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:15 CEST | 2006/5/12
- I don't understand Marjanović's objection. Modern classification is phylogentic and is based on a hypothesis about relatedness. That doesn't mean it's all correct. And there are historical holdovers (such as distinguising between birds and reptiles). But most classifications are best guesses, or consensus decisions at least and, as I say, based on a hypothesis about relatedness. Splitting and lumping is an issue, but that doesn't alter the relatedness of organisms. Just as you may not acknowledge a 5th cousin as being part of your "family," she is still distantly related to you. What is David Marjanović proposing specifically? Eperotao 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to use the latest classification of Prokaryotes, Archeas and Eukaryotes? Lord Metroid 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree. The three domains are, I believe, the Eubacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya (which are descended from the Archaea). Within each domain are several kingdoms. The kingdoms Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia are, of course, Eukarya. But the other domains also contain 3 or more kingdoms as well, I believe. I'm just writing from memory. But the taxonomy here is surprising (ly out of date) given the precision of the rest of the box. The three domains have been well accepted for close to a decade now, possibly longer. Eperotao 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Information link
Moved query to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservation Status
The conservation status on the taxoboxes I've seen isn't directly under the common name anymore, but is instead under the photo, someone who has the time and knowhow should change this page to reflect that... Whirlingdervish 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Namespace
Shouldn't this be in the Help namespace, i.e., Help:How to read a taxobox? --Oldak Quill 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Distribution?
Could we add a distribution section like they have in the Wildlife Fact File? Brisvegas 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rank
For taxoboxes that describe a rank, not a species, the taxobox will list the sub-ranks. Some of these may be marked with a dagger, which I believe means that all members of this sub-rank are extinct, for example Hominini. However, this is not stated. We should add a note to the article about rank boxes, and the annotations mean. I think i've also seen an astrisk used. CS Miller 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
