![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
Please add in the domain. It's missing but it's an integral component to taxonomy. I would do it myself but I don't understand wikipedia programming language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.251 ( talk) 16:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a domain parameter which can be used in the taxobox. Apparently consensus is to not include domain except in articles about bacteria, archaea, and the articles about the eukaryote kingdoms themselves ( Plant, Animal], Fungus). Plantdrew ( talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I came to understanding that using |name=
and {{
italic title}} in an article that uses the same binomial or the same genus, family or other name is a waste of taxobox space and is probably even confusing for editors as well. In some cases I read that repitition is not desirable, and this is such case. As a side note, user
Rkitko mentioned that it would be harder for new editors if the italic title and name wont be present at taxobox anymore. However I need to reson here by saying that new editors wont have a hard time, for an example look on the discussion above: Someone removed domain name, no big deal.--
Mishae (
talk)
14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
binomial=
or genus=
field (with the appropriate number of apostrophes on either side and no other characters), then the title will be italicised. There is no word limit on Wikipedia (
WP:NOTPAPER), so we don't need to worry about a potential "waste of taxobox space". Editability and ease of understanding for editors are the overriding issues (provided the article's appearance to readers is unchanged), and to that end, it can be useful to include both, which is indeed what I routinely do. I would consider any recommendation to editors to use one or other system to be unwelcome
instruction creep. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
I created my first article namely Ormosia travancorica. When i try to enter the data of Wikispecies (Which is updated classification), I can't why? For example, there are many Cladus parameter, here the box shows as unranked. Please, make necessary changes to enter such data. -- தகவலுழவன் ( talk) 07:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to discuss a new parameter - Hardiness zone. I have used wikipedia to find out possible habitable zones (more specific - temperatures they can survive) for some species (plants, animals) and usually it's really hard to find this information. As all species have specific temperature zones (hardiness zones) where they can survive, i suggest to add this parameter to template, as it can be very useful. Vilnisr T | C 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The habit of step-skipping when listing scientific classifications using this template is horrible, I think. It's one thing to omit something accidentally when we don't know it, or to forget to include it, but to actually intentionally omit or remove intermediate classifications just serves to promote confusion about the branching.
We should make it a necessity to include these fields, and disallow removing such steps. If anything, the template should be altered to leave a blank space if the field is removed so we know it is missing and can restore it.
If we have to omit stuff due to space restrictions, we should do so with the higher-up obvious stuff like animalia/chordata/mammalia which are well known, and which people could find out by moving up the tree if necessary. But people can not easily find intermediate lower-end stuff that we omit, and would be left ignorant of critical branch points if we do not include them. Ranze ( talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with adding more ranks to taxoboxes. They are intended to provide readers with a general orientation. They are often already too long for the article, interfering with the placement of images. The correct place to explain and discuss the detailed classification of the taxon which is the subject of the article is in the text. Taxoboxes are not a substitute for text – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of tables. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Rainbow trout, the overall type species Oncorhynchus mykiss is not threatened or endangered, yet there are Distinct population segments that are designated as either threatened or endangered. Whats the best way to handle this in the Taxobox status parameters? Thanks. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across the
Fabaceae article, which gives a figure for {{{diversity}}}
("730 genera and 19.400 species"), but doesn't include a {{{diversity_link}}}
. As a result, the taxobox shows a broken link, like this: [[|Diversity]]. Issues with this parameter have been
raised
before, and while there were problems raised, the last suggestion, of having a default {{{diversity_link}}}
(perhaps as
Biodiversity as suggested) would solve cases like this, as well as taking the first step towards standardising the section. ‑‑
xensyria
T
00:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
{{{diversity}}}
contents, not the header should link to the diversity article/section. I'd also say you're right about the inconsistent links, but if we managed to move the link from the header (overcoming any problems), shouldn't we make it link to the general case article, like the other headers do (i.e.
Conservation status,
Virus classification,
Scientific classification,
Binomial name,
Trinomial name etc.)? Existing usage may be a problem, and I was about to propose a tracking category, only to find
Category:Articles using diversity taxobox in the code. There are just over 1,700 articles and I'm working my way through them now; if we remove any links in {{{diversity}}}
, we should be able to follow the suggestion to move the link. ‑‑
xensyria
T
18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Was the template changed? The Diversity link atm seems to be double-bolded. It shows up Diversity rather than Diversity.-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 14:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
class="infobox biota"
?), but is it happening when the diversity_link is a selflink to the article (which adds <strong></strong>
tags in addition to any styling)? ‑‑
xensyria
T
19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've cleared all uses of links, tags and templates that would break the template if we applied {{{diversity_link}}}
to {{{diversity}}}
rather than its heading, which had been the only objection to implementing it straight away. I've made the proposed change along with a fix for taxoboxes missing {{{diversity_link}}}
at
both
sandboxes (see
testcases). There were quite a few ref tags, which have led me to add a new {{{diversity_ref}}}
parameter too (matching the existing {{{synonyms_ref}}}
), which will hopefully also have the benefit of encouraging verifiability. Unless anyone objects to any of this I'll add an edit request in a bit. ‑‑
xensyria
T
12:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update
Template:Taxobox and
Template:Taxobox/core from their sandboxes (
Template:Taxobox/sandbox (
diff),
Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox (
diff)).
Thanks to Rjwilmsi I'll be able to correct cases of {{{diversity_link}}}
matching the title or linking to
Biodiversity once this is done, when removing the parameter won't break the box. ‑‑
xensyria
T
08:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
{{{diversity_ref}}}
, which should cover it. ‑‑
xensyria
T
17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#Taxonomy. Debresser ( talk) 19:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I raised the issue at Wikiproject plants that it would be useful to add
Floral formula to the taxobox. See for instance
Liliaceae, where it appears under Description as
Floral formula: *
P 3+3 A 3+3 G (3)
But was subsequently transformed into an Image frame:
| Floral_formula =
which might appear as
Floral formula: *
P 3+3 A 3+3 G (3)
--
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Following discussions on Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move, on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane and especially on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation, it is now clear that the consensus is not to capitalise the common (vernacular) name of all species.
The guidelines are detailed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms.
Coreyemotela ( talk) 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
Might the "(unranked)" label be superfluous and are the colons following each label really necessary? (A fine template otherwise!) Sardanaphalus ( talk) 09:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any chance to put tooltips on the conservation status codes. For example if someone didn't know what EW stood for, they could hover over it and the tooltip would tell them. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on expanding the content of millipedes, which have a highly split system of ranks (see here). In addition to various sub- and infra- taxa, there is the existence of two major "subterclasses" between the rank of infraclass and superorder. Is there a way to denote this in the taxobox, e.g on subterclass Colobognatha, without resorting to unranked (incorrect) or clade (imprecise)? Is there a general syntax or format for displaying little-used ranks? Thanks. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2014 (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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
Please add in the domain. It's missing but it's an integral component to taxonomy. I would do it myself but I don't understand wikipedia programming language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.251 ( talk) 16:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a domain parameter which can be used in the taxobox. Apparently consensus is to not include domain except in articles about bacteria, archaea, and the articles about the eukaryote kingdoms themselves ( Plant, Animal], Fungus). Plantdrew ( talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I came to understanding that using |name=
and {{
italic title}} in an article that uses the same binomial or the same genus, family or other name is a waste of taxobox space and is probably even confusing for editors as well. In some cases I read that repitition is not desirable, and this is such case. As a side note, user
Rkitko mentioned that it would be harder for new editors if the italic title and name wont be present at taxobox anymore. However I need to reson here by saying that new editors wont have a hard time, for an example look on the discussion above: Someone removed domain name, no big deal.--
Mishae (
talk)
14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
binomial=
or genus=
field (with the appropriate number of apostrophes on either side and no other characters), then the title will be italicised. There is no word limit on Wikipedia (
WP:NOTPAPER), so we don't need to worry about a potential "waste of taxobox space". Editability and ease of understanding for editors are the overriding issues (provided the article's appearance to readers is unchanged), and to that end, it can be useful to include both, which is indeed what I routinely do. I would consider any recommendation to editors to use one or other system to be unwelcome
instruction creep. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
I created my first article namely Ormosia travancorica. When i try to enter the data of Wikispecies (Which is updated classification), I can't why? For example, there are many Cladus parameter, here the box shows as unranked. Please, make necessary changes to enter such data. -- தகவலுழவன் ( talk) 07:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to discuss a new parameter - Hardiness zone. I have used wikipedia to find out possible habitable zones (more specific - temperatures they can survive) for some species (plants, animals) and usually it's really hard to find this information. As all species have specific temperature zones (hardiness zones) where they can survive, i suggest to add this parameter to template, as it can be very useful. Vilnisr T | C 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The habit of step-skipping when listing scientific classifications using this template is horrible, I think. It's one thing to omit something accidentally when we don't know it, or to forget to include it, but to actually intentionally omit or remove intermediate classifications just serves to promote confusion about the branching.
We should make it a necessity to include these fields, and disallow removing such steps. If anything, the template should be altered to leave a blank space if the field is removed so we know it is missing and can restore it.
If we have to omit stuff due to space restrictions, we should do so with the higher-up obvious stuff like animalia/chordata/mammalia which are well known, and which people could find out by moving up the tree if necessary. But people can not easily find intermediate lower-end stuff that we omit, and would be left ignorant of critical branch points if we do not include them. Ranze ( talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with adding more ranks to taxoboxes. They are intended to provide readers with a general orientation. They are often already too long for the article, interfering with the placement of images. The correct place to explain and discuss the detailed classification of the taxon which is the subject of the article is in the text. Taxoboxes are not a substitute for text – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of tables. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Rainbow trout, the overall type species Oncorhynchus mykiss is not threatened or endangered, yet there are Distinct population segments that are designated as either threatened or endangered. Whats the best way to handle this in the Taxobox status parameters? Thanks. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across the
Fabaceae article, which gives a figure for {{{diversity}}}
("730 genera and 19.400 species"), but doesn't include a {{{diversity_link}}}
. As a result, the taxobox shows a broken link, like this: [[|Diversity]]. Issues with this parameter have been
raised
before, and while there were problems raised, the last suggestion, of having a default {{{diversity_link}}}
(perhaps as
Biodiversity as suggested) would solve cases like this, as well as taking the first step towards standardising the section. ‑‑
xensyria
T
00:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
{{{diversity}}}
contents, not the header should link to the diversity article/section. I'd also say you're right about the inconsistent links, but if we managed to move the link from the header (overcoming any problems), shouldn't we make it link to the general case article, like the other headers do (i.e.
Conservation status,
Virus classification,
Scientific classification,
Binomial name,
Trinomial name etc.)? Existing usage may be a problem, and I was about to propose a tracking category, only to find
Category:Articles using diversity taxobox in the code. There are just over 1,700 articles and I'm working my way through them now; if we remove any links in {{{diversity}}}
, we should be able to follow the suggestion to move the link. ‑‑
xensyria
T
18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Was the template changed? The Diversity link atm seems to be double-bolded. It shows up Diversity rather than Diversity.-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 14:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
class="infobox biota"
?), but is it happening when the diversity_link is a selflink to the article (which adds <strong></strong>
tags in addition to any styling)? ‑‑
xensyria
T
19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've cleared all uses of links, tags and templates that would break the template if we applied {{{diversity_link}}}
to {{{diversity}}}
rather than its heading, which had been the only objection to implementing it straight away. I've made the proposed change along with a fix for taxoboxes missing {{{diversity_link}}}
at
both
sandboxes (see
testcases). There were quite a few ref tags, which have led me to add a new {{{diversity_ref}}}
parameter too (matching the existing {{{synonyms_ref}}}
), which will hopefully also have the benefit of encouraging verifiability. Unless anyone objects to any of this I'll add an edit request in a bit. ‑‑
xensyria
T
12:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update
Template:Taxobox and
Template:Taxobox/core from their sandboxes (
Template:Taxobox/sandbox (
diff),
Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox (
diff)).
Thanks to Rjwilmsi I'll be able to correct cases of {{{diversity_link}}}
matching the title or linking to
Biodiversity once this is done, when removing the parameter won't break the box. ‑‑
xensyria
T
08:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
{{{diversity_ref}}}
, which should cover it. ‑‑
xensyria
T
17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#Taxonomy. Debresser ( talk) 19:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I raised the issue at Wikiproject plants that it would be useful to add
Floral formula to the taxobox. See for instance
Liliaceae, where it appears under Description as
Floral formula: *
P 3+3 A 3+3 G (3)
But was subsequently transformed into an Image frame:
| Floral_formula =
which might appear as
Floral formula: *
P 3+3 A 3+3 G (3)
--
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Following discussions on Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move, on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane and especially on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation, it is now clear that the consensus is not to capitalise the common (vernacular) name of all species.
The guidelines are detailed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms.
Coreyemotela ( talk) 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
Might the "(unranked)" label be superfluous and are the colons following each label really necessary? (A fine template otherwise!) Sardanaphalus ( talk) 09:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any chance to put tooltips on the conservation status codes. For example if someone didn't know what EW stood for, they could hover over it and the tooltip would tell them. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on expanding the content of millipedes, which have a highly split system of ranks (see here). In addition to various sub- and infra- taxa, there is the existence of two major "subterclasses" between the rank of infraclass and superorder. Is there a way to denote this in the taxobox, e.g on subterclass Colobognatha, without resorting to unranked (incorrect) or clade (imprecise)? Is there a general syntax or format for displaying little-used ranks? Thanks. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)