![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Looks like there's something funky with the taxobox. Something to do with the colspan of |domain_authority=
and then the alternative phylogeny self-made section. Perhaps someone with template expertise could take a look at this?
Rkitko (
talk)
19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have edited the sandbox at Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox to change the linking for trinomial names from Trinomial nomenclature (essentially a disambiguation page) to either Trinomen or Ternary name as appropriate. The link appearance is unchanged, only the destination changes. See side-by-side examples at Template:Taxobox/testcases (last two examples).
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding several tracking categories to aid in Lepidopteran cleanup. IF YOU NOTICE A BREAKAGE, PLEASE REVERT! Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Recently an article has been created on the very rare Abutilon pitcairnense, a plant found only on Pitcairn island. In the sources for the article it is stated that the species was though extinct until 2003 when a single wild specimen was found. Through cuttings and seed propagation more specimens have been grown. However, the wild specimen was killed in a landslide in 2005. I have twice tried to add the ew conservation status to the taxobox to represent that the specie is extinct in the wild. Both times it has been reverted by Stemonitis who states the taxobox parameter should only be used for IUCN evaluated species. I am of the opinion thatsince it is clearly stated in the reliable sources the species is extinct in the wild the parameter should be usable in the taxobox even if it is not evaliuated at this time by the IUCN. Thoughts?-- Kev min § 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
status=
parameter is not actually for the taxon's real status, but only for its status on one of various lists (since anything else will tend to be subjective albeit less so for things like "extinct in the wild"). The IUCN Red List is one, but there are others. The fact that adding status=EW
without adding status_system=iucn3.1
(or similar) invokes a cleanup category is an indication that some information is missing.
Wikipedia:Conservation status was marked as inactive last year, but only because it hadn't been edited much recently (which might be interpreted as stability rather than obsolescence). As far as I can see, it is still a pretty accurate listing of the status systems and the associated statuses that are accomodated by the taxobox code. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ Taxobox}} has been messed up. The history of Brachiopod now shows a mess just before the GA review (13:52, 7 April 2010) and at the end of the review (21:21, 9 April 2010). This means someone messed up {{ Taxobox}} later and it has not been fixed. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoops! That was embarrassing. I just ruined the taxobox in thousands of articles...off to the sandbox now...
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
23:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
color
parameter has been removed, it must not eject its passed parameter onto the page, as it is currently doing for thousands of viruses and bacteria. See the word "khaki" at the start of
Babesia divergens, and "violet" at
Alphaherpesvirinae. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Invalid color:
-->{{#ifeq:{{{colour|}}}|{{taxobox/Error colour}}|[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]}}{{#ifeq:{{str index|{{{colour|}}}|1}}|r||{{{colour}}}[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]}}<!--
#ifeq:
outputs {{{colour}}}[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]
if the colour
value does not begin with "r". It should just output [[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]
, i.e. {{{colour}}}
here should be removed. I cannot edit this template, otherwise I would try this fix.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)color
parameter, rather than colour
? Any other named parameter (e.g. coluor
) is simply ignored, rather than spilling its contents over the screen. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)color
and colour
as alternatives and passes the resultant value of whichever is used to {{
Taxobox/core}} which only accepts the parameter colour
. So if you specify EITHER color
or colour
in using {{
Taxobox}} you'll see the error (as I've tested and verified at
Agathis ovata). I'm pretty confident that the error is as I've said above. I'll now test it by copying both templates, {{
Taxobox}} and {{
Taxobox/core}}, to my userspace and using them from there.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
08:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)<th colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background-color: brown"> <a href="/info/en/?search=Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></th>
<th colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)"> <a href="/info/en/?search=Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></th>
Unfortunately, passing along a numeric color value as a parameter (regardless of the parameter's use) messes it up (due to the WikiParser converting the pound sign into an ordered list item:
<th>colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: <ol> <li>2F053E" | <a href="/info/en/?search=Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></li> </ol> </th>
Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
<nowiki>
around their color codes if they type them.
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The above means that the error test for "invalid colour" at the end of {{tl:taxobox/core}} is not right.
Why not just remove the error test? Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up-- probably within the next 24 hours, I'll be making the code modification presented above in Template talk:Taxobox#RfC, as NoomBot will be finishing up the unranked_familia cleanup within the next few hours.
Please be advised that following the code modification, unranked_familia will appear beneath superfamilia in the taxobox instead of above it. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Completed
I see we now have categories for a number of misspecified taxa, such as "family" instead of "familia". I have been fixing a few of these, and one misspecification that I have come across a few times is "classes" for "classis". It might be worth seeing how many taxoboxes try to use that parameter, and fixing them. Any other misspellings have only cropped up once each in my checks so far. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Occasionally, papers describing new species suggest an IUCN Red List conservation status for their new taxa (examples: Drymoreomys; Lagidium ahuacaense). I had a brief discussion at User talk:Stemonitis#New status system about such taxa; Stemonitis feels that we should exclude such a status from the taxobox and wait for the IUCN to make it official, and I prefer to report the conservation status in the taxobox where we can. What do others think? Ucucha 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Being a ridiculous pleonasm, the term 'Binomial name' has largely been replaced by 'binomen'. Isn't it time for WP to follow suit? Androstachys ( talk) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost any change would be an improvement! Androstachys ( talk) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Is "ridiculous pleonasm" a ridiculous pleonasm? Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that "binomen" is zoological nomenclature, and inappropriate for plant taxoboxes. The ICBN uses "binomial" as noun. Hesperian 11:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
1. There are different codes for different taxa, however much we would prefer there to be only one.
2. There are significant differences between the codes (some, but only some, of these differences are covered at Binomial_nomenclature#Codes).
Wikipedia editors cannot impose the usage of one code on taxa covered by another code. Picking up what Androstachys wrote, I might just as well say that since plant and animal names both use the Linnaean system, I can't see why the use of connecting terms such as "varietas" by the animal world would not be appropriate or that I can't see why zoologists should not give up using tautonyms and rename all species with such names.
(By the way, 'binomial' is incorrect under the current ICZN; strictly it should be "binominal". However, as has been discussed before, this usage doesn't seem to have been widely taken up.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The sub-templates {{
Species list}} and {{
Taxon list}}, which call {{
Species list/core}}, format their output HTML as a series of DIV
s, not a LI
-based list. This is semantically incorrect and reduces accessibility. The issue may be addressed by calling {{
Unbulleted list}}, or by using the applicable parts of its code in {{Species list/core}}
. No visual change would result from such an improvement. Who has sufficient knowledge of the existing templates, to do this?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Looks like there's something funky with the taxobox. Something to do with the colspan of |domain_authority=
and then the alternative phylogeny self-made section. Perhaps someone with template expertise could take a look at this?
Rkitko (
talk)
19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have edited the sandbox at Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox to change the linking for trinomial names from Trinomial nomenclature (essentially a disambiguation page) to either Trinomen or Ternary name as appropriate. The link appearance is unchanged, only the destination changes. See side-by-side examples at Template:Taxobox/testcases (last two examples).
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding several tracking categories to aid in Lepidopteran cleanup. IF YOU NOTICE A BREAKAGE, PLEASE REVERT! Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Recently an article has been created on the very rare Abutilon pitcairnense, a plant found only on Pitcairn island. In the sources for the article it is stated that the species was though extinct until 2003 when a single wild specimen was found. Through cuttings and seed propagation more specimens have been grown. However, the wild specimen was killed in a landslide in 2005. I have twice tried to add the ew conservation status to the taxobox to represent that the specie is extinct in the wild. Both times it has been reverted by Stemonitis who states the taxobox parameter should only be used for IUCN evaluated species. I am of the opinion thatsince it is clearly stated in the reliable sources the species is extinct in the wild the parameter should be usable in the taxobox even if it is not evaliuated at this time by the IUCN. Thoughts?-- Kev min § 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
status=
parameter is not actually for the taxon's real status, but only for its status on one of various lists (since anything else will tend to be subjective albeit less so for things like "extinct in the wild"). The IUCN Red List is one, but there are others. The fact that adding status=EW
without adding status_system=iucn3.1
(or similar) invokes a cleanup category is an indication that some information is missing.
Wikipedia:Conservation status was marked as inactive last year, but only because it hadn't been edited much recently (which might be interpreted as stability rather than obsolescence). As far as I can see, it is still a pretty accurate listing of the status systems and the associated statuses that are accomodated by the taxobox code. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ Taxobox}} has been messed up. The history of Brachiopod now shows a mess just before the GA review (13:52, 7 April 2010) and at the end of the review (21:21, 9 April 2010). This means someone messed up {{ Taxobox}} later and it has not been fixed. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoops! That was embarrassing. I just ruined the taxobox in thousands of articles...off to the sandbox now...
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
23:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
color
parameter has been removed, it must not eject its passed parameter onto the page, as it is currently doing for thousands of viruses and bacteria. See the word "khaki" at the start of
Babesia divergens, and "violet" at
Alphaherpesvirinae. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Invalid color:
-->{{#ifeq:{{{colour|}}}|{{taxobox/Error colour}}|[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]}}{{#ifeq:{{str index|{{{colour|}}}|1}}|r||{{{colour}}}[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]}}<!--
#ifeq:
outputs {{{colour}}}[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]
if the colour
value does not begin with "r". It should just output [[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]
, i.e. {{{colour}}}
here should be removed. I cannot edit this template, otherwise I would try this fix.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)color
parameter, rather than colour
? Any other named parameter (e.g. coluor
) is simply ignored, rather than spilling its contents over the screen. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)color
and colour
as alternatives and passes the resultant value of whichever is used to {{
Taxobox/core}} which only accepts the parameter colour
. So if you specify EITHER color
or colour
in using {{
Taxobox}} you'll see the error (as I've tested and verified at
Agathis ovata). I'm pretty confident that the error is as I've said above. I'll now test it by copying both templates, {{
Taxobox}} and {{
Taxobox/core}}, to my userspace and using them from there.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
08:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)<th colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background-color: brown"> <a href="/info/en/?search=Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></th>
<th colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)"> <a href="/info/en/?search=Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></th>
Unfortunately, passing along a numeric color value as a parameter (regardless of the parameter's use) messes it up (due to the WikiParser converting the pound sign into an ordered list item:
<th>colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: <ol> <li>2F053E" | <a href="/info/en/?search=Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></li> </ol> </th>
Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
<nowiki>
around their color codes if they type them.
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The above means that the error test for "invalid colour" at the end of {{tl:taxobox/core}} is not right.
Why not just remove the error test? Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up-- probably within the next 24 hours, I'll be making the code modification presented above in Template talk:Taxobox#RfC, as NoomBot will be finishing up the unranked_familia cleanup within the next few hours.
Please be advised that following the code modification, unranked_familia will appear beneath superfamilia in the taxobox instead of above it. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Completed
I see we now have categories for a number of misspecified taxa, such as "family" instead of "familia". I have been fixing a few of these, and one misspecification that I have come across a few times is "classes" for "classis". It might be worth seeing how many taxoboxes try to use that parameter, and fixing them. Any other misspellings have only cropped up once each in my checks so far. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Occasionally, papers describing new species suggest an IUCN Red List conservation status for their new taxa (examples: Drymoreomys; Lagidium ahuacaense). I had a brief discussion at User talk:Stemonitis#New status system about such taxa; Stemonitis feels that we should exclude such a status from the taxobox and wait for the IUCN to make it official, and I prefer to report the conservation status in the taxobox where we can. What do others think? Ucucha 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Being a ridiculous pleonasm, the term 'Binomial name' has largely been replaced by 'binomen'. Isn't it time for WP to follow suit? Androstachys ( talk) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost any change would be an improvement! Androstachys ( talk) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Is "ridiculous pleonasm" a ridiculous pleonasm? Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that "binomen" is zoological nomenclature, and inappropriate for plant taxoboxes. The ICBN uses "binomial" as noun. Hesperian 11:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
1. There are different codes for different taxa, however much we would prefer there to be only one.
2. There are significant differences between the codes (some, but only some, of these differences are covered at Binomial_nomenclature#Codes).
Wikipedia editors cannot impose the usage of one code on taxa covered by another code. Picking up what Androstachys wrote, I might just as well say that since plant and animal names both use the Linnaean system, I can't see why the use of connecting terms such as "varietas" by the animal world would not be appropriate or that I can't see why zoologists should not give up using tautonyms and rename all species with such names.
(By the way, 'binomial' is incorrect under the current ICZN; strictly it should be "binominal". However, as has been discussed before, this usage doesn't seem to have been widely taken up.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The sub-templates {{
Species list}} and {{
Taxon list}}, which call {{
Species list/core}}, format their output HTML as a series of DIV
s, not a LI
-based list. This is semantically incorrect and reduces accessibility. The issue may be addressed by calling {{
Unbulleted list}}, or by using the applicable parts of its code in {{Species list/core}}
. No visual change would result from such an improvement. Who has sufficient knowledge of the existing templates, to do this?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)