This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Prior archive: Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_11 (topics of 2008)
Is there a reason that this status, given by the IUCN, doesn't have a category? Frickeg ( talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Rhododendron luteum | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Scientific classification | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Binomial name | ||||||||||||||||||
Rhododendron luteum Sweet | ||||||||||||||||||
Name GUID | ||||||||||||||||||
urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:332818-1:1.1.2.1 |
I'd like to add a new section to the taxobox to hold a Name GUID. This would enable authors to link pages about taxa to official nomenclatural databases such as Index Fungorum, IPNI and ZooBank. It would also aid in indexers linking wikipedia pages into other pages that cite the names by GUID.
This is a relatively minor change and I have put together some examples (with and without LSIDs) in my own user space (as per instructions), User:RogerHyam/taxoboxtest and User:RogerHyam/taxobox
I can think of a couple of issues.
1) The LSIDs don't look pretty. We could perhaps hide them behind a icon but that would stop people cutting and pasting them if needed. These are not things you type in. Some one with more template expertise would have to help do an icon based approach. Could we embed the name_guid anywhere else in the taxobox?
2) The LSIDs currently link to RDF via the TDWG LSID resolver. We could link them to the human readable summary page that renders the RDF nicely but that might make it more difficult for machines to follow the link.
It only just occurred to me that we could make this change yet I have been thinking about how to integrate the nomenclators more tightly with Wikipedia for months. I am very excited about the possibility of getting this change in.
I embed and example here:
RogerHyam ( talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I'll leave this comment here and see what people think but having thought it through over some coffee I think maybe a customer GUID template would be better...
RogerHyam ( talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am attempting to copy the template over to RationalWiki. Could someone help me with this? -- ConservapediaUndergroundResistor ( talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that removing the "name" entry from a taxobox in an article that has a scientific-name title will italicize the title. I've noticed that this works for mononomials as well as binomials, but apparently not for trinomials. Example: Atheris nitschei rungweensis. This looks like a bug to me. -- Jwinius ( talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to remove a superdomain in Template:Taxobox. Neomura is clade and not taxon (Cavalier- Smith, 2002). Taxonomic rank for Neomura doesn't exist. Is there evidence that Taxonomic rank for Neomura exists?
I'm sorry for my broken English. -- Krclathrate ( talk) 09:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have a special colour or double-colour for cross-kingdom symbiotes, such as lichens? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I found these ranks in Talk:Lobopodia#Recent classification. is there any evidence that these ranks should be added to taxobox? Ernsts ( talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for the auto-color to also accept domains instead of kingdoms? I've noticed a large number of our Bacteria articles still refer to Bacteria as the kingdom and not the domain. Changing it from regnum = Bacteria to domain = Bacteria rids the template of the ability to auto select the color based on the kingdom, e.g. Acaryochloris. Seems like a simple fix, but I'd rather not mess up the template by tinkering with it! -- Rkitko ( talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Shoot me if this makes no sense but I was wondering how to get efficient access to the number of articles with taxoboxes. (Yes, a bot could simply go through the "what links here" but I'm hoping for something a little more permanent.) The objective is to get a rough idea of the percentage of genus/species articles on-wiki. For other large classes of articles (say biographies, albums, songs) rough stats can be garnered by WikiProject tagging but this is not possible in the present case because of the overlapping and fragmented nature of the relevant projects. So I was hoping to exploit the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word and set up something like Category:All disambiguation pages. The idea would be to create some hiddencat, say Category:All articles with a taxobox template and modify the Taxobox template to automatically populate the cat. Thoughts? Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It's probably me missing something simple, but can anyone suggest why the subdivisions aren't showing up at Monoplacophora and Neopilina? I've specified subdivsion_ranks and subdivision... The params work fine at, e.g., Cephalopod Thanks, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
At present, when you give the taxobox a "CITES_A1" status, the taxobox renders "Appendix I" but does not mention or link to CITES or give any other context. This is too vague. I am going to change it so that it renders " CITES Appendix I". I will be bold and make the change immediately because I can't imagine how this change could possibly be controversial, and I think by now I have demonstrated that I am capable of editing the taxobox without fucking up. If anyone objects to this change, by all means revert me, or ask me to revert myself, and we can discuss it here. Hesperian 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, images in this infobox should have alt text if the images have a function (and are not purely decoration). This infobox can generate several functional images, for the main and subsidiary images and for range maps, and there should be a way to specify alt text for all of them. Also, this image can generate nonfunctional images for the extinction status, and these need to be marked as nonfunctional using "link=".
I've prepared changes to implement this in the sandbox, and have tested them using the test cases, and have updated the documentation accordingly. Can you please install the template changes into the main version? The easiest way to do this is to copy the sandbox into the main version, but remove the "/sandbox" in the sandbox copy first. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{taxobox|name=Test}}
Something is causing some extraneous text to show. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Test2 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: |
Added an automated archiver, User:MiszaBot/config, set at 7 days, it'll stop leaving 4 threads left if discussions slows. Moved archive subpages so that they'd appear in the {{ archives}}, marked the redirects for deletion. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me out with what happened here? I changed the name of the species in keeping with the move and also made the link to animal not a redirect and the taxobox went crazy. Changing animal back to a redirect made it all go back to normal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The type species should really appear as first item under the break after the article taxon and its author. It looks crappy now, with the type species being listed under diversity.
Reading flow is impeded, as the "type_species" section is an equivalent of the "binomial"/"binomial_authority" section of species (and "trinomial" of sspp.), while the "diversity" section is an equivalent of "subdivision_ranks" (I use it whenever there are more than 5 subordinate taxa or so) and links out of the taxobox. Therefore, each should hold the same position as their equivalent.
{{
editprotected}}
Proposed sequence of taxobox sections is thus:
This would probably be accomplished by moving the following:
{{#if:{{{diversity|}}}| ! [[{{{diversity_link}}}|Diversity]] {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} | {{ns:0}} | [[Category:Articles using diversity taxobox]] | }} {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} {{{diversity|}}}}} |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
to below
! [[Biological type|Type strain]] {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} {{{type_strain}}}}} |- style="text-align:center;"
i.e. before
{{#if:{{{range_map|}}}|
amirite?
Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{subdivision|}}}| ! {{{subdivision_ranks}}} {{!}}- {{!}} style="padding:0 .5em; text-align:left;" {{!}} {{{subdivision|}}} }} |-style="text-align:center; background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum| {{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
Demonstration
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I've implemented the change at User:Hesperian/Taxobox. Here is the proposed diff. [5]. The taxobox on the right uses this code. The changes are slightly different from what is stated above. If I can get confirmation that this meets the request, I'll push it in. Hesperian 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Prior archive: Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_11 (topics of 2008)
Is there a reason that this status, given by the IUCN, doesn't have a category? Frickeg ( talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Rhododendron luteum | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Scientific classification | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Binomial name | ||||||||||||||||||
Rhododendron luteum Sweet | ||||||||||||||||||
Name GUID | ||||||||||||||||||
urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:332818-1:1.1.2.1 |
I'd like to add a new section to the taxobox to hold a Name GUID. This would enable authors to link pages about taxa to official nomenclatural databases such as Index Fungorum, IPNI and ZooBank. It would also aid in indexers linking wikipedia pages into other pages that cite the names by GUID.
This is a relatively minor change and I have put together some examples (with and without LSIDs) in my own user space (as per instructions), User:RogerHyam/taxoboxtest and User:RogerHyam/taxobox
I can think of a couple of issues.
1) The LSIDs don't look pretty. We could perhaps hide them behind a icon but that would stop people cutting and pasting them if needed. These are not things you type in. Some one with more template expertise would have to help do an icon based approach. Could we embed the name_guid anywhere else in the taxobox?
2) The LSIDs currently link to RDF via the TDWG LSID resolver. We could link them to the human readable summary page that renders the RDF nicely but that might make it more difficult for machines to follow the link.
It only just occurred to me that we could make this change yet I have been thinking about how to integrate the nomenclators more tightly with Wikipedia for months. I am very excited about the possibility of getting this change in.
I embed and example here:
RogerHyam ( talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I'll leave this comment here and see what people think but having thought it through over some coffee I think maybe a customer GUID template would be better...
RogerHyam ( talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I am attempting to copy the template over to RationalWiki. Could someone help me with this? -- ConservapediaUndergroundResistor ( talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that removing the "name" entry from a taxobox in an article that has a scientific-name title will italicize the title. I've noticed that this works for mononomials as well as binomials, but apparently not for trinomials. Example: Atheris nitschei rungweensis. This looks like a bug to me. -- Jwinius ( talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to remove a superdomain in Template:Taxobox. Neomura is clade and not taxon (Cavalier- Smith, 2002). Taxonomic rank for Neomura doesn't exist. Is there evidence that Taxonomic rank for Neomura exists?
I'm sorry for my broken English. -- Krclathrate ( talk) 09:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have a special colour or double-colour for cross-kingdom symbiotes, such as lichens? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I found these ranks in Talk:Lobopodia#Recent classification. is there any evidence that these ranks should be added to taxobox? Ernsts ( talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for the auto-color to also accept domains instead of kingdoms? I've noticed a large number of our Bacteria articles still refer to Bacteria as the kingdom and not the domain. Changing it from regnum = Bacteria to domain = Bacteria rids the template of the ability to auto select the color based on the kingdom, e.g. Acaryochloris. Seems like a simple fix, but I'd rather not mess up the template by tinkering with it! -- Rkitko ( talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Shoot me if this makes no sense but I was wondering how to get efficient access to the number of articles with taxoboxes. (Yes, a bot could simply go through the "what links here" but I'm hoping for something a little more permanent.) The objective is to get a rough idea of the percentage of genus/species articles on-wiki. For other large classes of articles (say biographies, albums, songs) rough stats can be garnered by WikiProject tagging but this is not possible in the present case because of the overlapping and fragmented nature of the relevant projects. So I was hoping to exploit the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word and set up something like Category:All disambiguation pages. The idea would be to create some hiddencat, say Category:All articles with a taxobox template and modify the Taxobox template to automatically populate the cat. Thoughts? Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It's probably me missing something simple, but can anyone suggest why the subdivisions aren't showing up at Monoplacophora and Neopilina? I've specified subdivsion_ranks and subdivision... The params work fine at, e.g., Cephalopod Thanks, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
At present, when you give the taxobox a "CITES_A1" status, the taxobox renders "Appendix I" but does not mention or link to CITES or give any other context. This is too vague. I am going to change it so that it renders " CITES Appendix I". I will be bold and make the change immediately because I can't imagine how this change could possibly be controversial, and I think by now I have demonstrated that I am capable of editing the taxobox without fucking up. If anyone objects to this change, by all means revert me, or ask me to revert myself, and we can discuss it here. Hesperian 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, images in this infobox should have alt text if the images have a function (and are not purely decoration). This infobox can generate several functional images, for the main and subsidiary images and for range maps, and there should be a way to specify alt text for all of them. Also, this image can generate nonfunctional images for the extinction status, and these need to be marked as nonfunctional using "link=".
I've prepared changes to implement this in the sandbox, and have tested them using the test cases, and have updated the documentation accordingly. Can you please install the template changes into the main version? The easiest way to do this is to copy the sandbox into the main version, but remove the "/sandbox" in the sandbox copy first. Thanks. Eubulides ( talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{taxobox|name=Test}}
Something is causing some extraneous text to show. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Test2 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: |
Added an automated archiver, User:MiszaBot/config, set at 7 days, it'll stop leaving 4 threads left if discussions slows. Moved archive subpages so that they'd appear in the {{ archives}}, marked the redirects for deletion. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me out with what happened here? I changed the name of the species in keeping with the move and also made the link to animal not a redirect and the taxobox went crazy. Changing animal back to a redirect made it all go back to normal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The type species should really appear as first item under the break after the article taxon and its author. It looks crappy now, with the type species being listed under diversity.
Reading flow is impeded, as the "type_species" section is an equivalent of the "binomial"/"binomial_authority" section of species (and "trinomial" of sspp.), while the "diversity" section is an equivalent of "subdivision_ranks" (I use it whenever there are more than 5 subordinate taxa or so) and links out of the taxobox. Therefore, each should hold the same position as their equivalent.
{{
editprotected}}
Proposed sequence of taxobox sections is thus:
This would probably be accomplished by moving the following:
{{#if:{{{diversity|}}}| ! [[{{{diversity_link}}}|Diversity]] {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} | {{ns:0}} | [[Category:Articles using diversity taxobox]] | }} {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} {{{diversity|}}}}} |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
to below
! [[Biological type|Type strain]] {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} {{{type_strain}}}}} |- style="text-align:center;"
i.e. before
{{#if:{{{range_map|}}}|
amirite?
Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{subdivision|}}}| ! {{{subdivision_ranks}}} {{!}}- {{!}} style="padding:0 .5em; text-align:left;" {{!}} {{{subdivision|}}} }} |-style="text-align:center; background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum| {{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
Demonstration
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I've implemented the change at User:Hesperian/Taxobox. Here is the proposed diff. [5]. The taxobox on the right uses this code. The changes are slightly different from what is stated above. If I can get confirmation that this meets the request, I'll push it in. Hesperian 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)