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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
For the "conservation status" what about allowing the option to tag a species as invasive? I was thinking that this would be worth mentioning, among many others, on cat. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never really looked into Wikipedia guidelines for species articles, but could someone point me to where they might be? This set of edits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_bean_aphid&diff=625148719&oldid=625141779) piqued my interest. One user claims that information in the taxobox should also be written as prose in the article as well. This seems awfully redundant in addition to seeming like too much information about the various taxonomic levels for a species article anyways. I'm just wondering if there is a good set of guidelines written somewhere that I could lead the user to and also keep as future reference when dealing with insect taxonomy related info. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I keep coming accross instances of this template with, for example, |binomial_authority=(
Linnaeus, 1758)
. This is harmful, and such values should be entered into two separate parameters, with the year in |binomial_date=
, for improved
data granularity. However, contrary to the template's documentation, this appears not to work. Have I misunderstood something, or is there a bug?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly due to this change by @ Peter coxhead:, many (most?) taxobox image captions seem to have been automatically shifted to left alignment (see for instance Garter snake or Rose or Crocodilia, although Reptile appears to still be centered). This issue, while not crucial, should be addressed ASAP to ensure stylistic congruity and aesthetics, i.e. captions should be centered by default unless explicitly coded for alternate alignment. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
At the article te:నల్ల_బెండ, Taxobox breaks. Why is it so? I have copied the temmplate as is, and also, it works for all fields in English, once i start adding Telugu, it breaks. -- Rahmanuddin Shaik ( talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
regnum
parameter to set the colour of the taxobox. In your example, changing regnum
from "వృక్ష సామ్రాజ్యం" to "Plantae" fixes the problem. You will need to adjust the template code (in the Telugu version of {{
taxobox colour}}) to recognise "వృక్ష సామ్రాజ్యం" and other kingdoms instead of "Plantae", "Animalia", etc. --
Stemonitis (
talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)I've noticed many taxoboxes use piped links or link suffixes to link to the common names of taxa, for example [[Animal]]ia or [[Fly|Diptera]]. In my experience this becomes problematic at lower levels because article organization sometimes changes, resulting in a difference between the linked article and the intended taxon. What is the rationale for using piped links are used in this way? Augurar ( talk) 08:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In some taxoboxes, such as the one at Tyrannosaurus, there's a dagger (†) next to a few of the classification names. As someone who isn't familiar with paleontology, I had no idea what this meant, and it took me awhile to figure out that it designated an extinct taxon. It's useful information that non-specialist users would find valuable, so I think we should try to make it more accessible. I can think of two ways to do this:
Perhaps some more experienced editors could weigh in on which might be a better option? And once a decision is made, maybe we could attract the attention of someone with a bot? Origamidesigner ( talk) 01:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The template: {{ Taxonomy/Cacopinae}} is deprecated, and yet a few other taxonomy templates transclude it. [1]I have no idea where to fix this, since the toolserver link [2] doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) 11 January 2014
I am trying to edit some Foraminifera orders to add the class and make the taxonomy consistent across Wikipedia and tied in to a source. I am trying to add this text to the Order Rotaliida's taxobox, to replace the current taxonomy scheme:
| domain = [[Eukarya]] | regnum = [[SAR supergroup|SAR]] | supergroup = [[Rhizaria]] | phylum = [[Foraminifera]] | classis = [[Globothalamea]]
However, every time I preview I get some weird column spans instead of a taxonomy box. What is going on here?
I also wanted to use a set of code for inserting the citation for this taxonomy, WoRMS use of the Foram DB, but the code does not generate a citation. Maybe this is tied in with the prior error? Can I place this code in the taxonomy box? It should go after the class, as it is specifically a citation for the placement of the order in a Foram class.
{{cite WoRMS |author= Pawlowski, Holzmann, Tyszka|year= 2013|title= Globothalamea|id= 744104|accessdate= January 18, 2015|db=forams}}
Any help would be appreciated.
MicroPaLeo ( talk) 21:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to call things unranked without a source that calls them unranked. It is not appropriate for a general resource to use my or your original research for any reason. I can only use an established source, and for taxoboxes it cannot be primary research. Wikipedia calls SAR a kingdom in its taxobox, and attaches a source to this, the automatic taxobox uses kingdom, also. If this is wrong, it can be fixed. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not note that I was emotionally uncalm, but as you have moved onto my emotional stability, I stopped reading--a little passive-aggressive and off topic for my tastes. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 04:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add a hidden cleanup category to this template, but I'd like to get consensus here first. The category would be placed if the taxobox doesn't have anything whatsoever about the IUCN Red List status: any of the normal options, even
Data Deficient, would prevent the category from appearing, and we could also have a parameter (e.g. omitiucn=yes
) to prevent the category from appearing if we had a good reason to omit the Red List. Basically, the category would be used just to find pages where we haven't addressed Red List status yet.
Nyttend (
talk) 18:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
status = NE
(not evaluated), but I've never felt that it's a useful distinction as most species are not evaluated and it would just add unnecessary information to the taxobox. The same would be true for species not evaluated under any of the other systems -- the point is to highlight species of conservation concern. Instead of a category that couldn't distinguish between those articles that shouldn't have a conservation status box because they're not evaluated and those that should but don't yet, a simpler solution is to get someone to scrape the data from IUCN for the species they have evaluated and compare it to the articles we have; if our article has a conservation status that agrees with the current IUCN list, it's removed from the list and the remainder are left for humans to check over. As for
Eremophila youngii,
WP:SOFIXIT. I just don't see the need or utility of a category for this purpose.
Rkitko (
talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)How might we add a |module=
parameter to this template, so that, for example, on
Enterobacter aerogenes, the {{
Bacterial labs}} template may be embedded?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Curious what's the rationale behind italicization of taxa in the taxobox. Some Wikipedias, like the Spanish and French, italicize all taxa, such as family names (see es:Dicentra and fr:Dicentra), while the English, German, and Portuguese Wikipedias italicize only the genus and species names (see Dicentra, pt:Dicentra and de:Herzblumen). Is there a reason for this, or is it just random formatting choices made by editors early in the history of these Wikipedias? — Eru· tuon 02:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is the Conservation status header left aligned while the others (Scientific classification, Binomial name) centered? See any species page, Etheostoma duryi for example. Was this a recent change? I had thought that it was centered as well, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly. Anyways, it seems odd to me that it wouldn't be centered. Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
status =
parameter for an extinct species, but then again I'm not the most observant person. Not sure what broke it, as
Template:Taxobox/species, which produces the conservation status link, had not been edited since 2013. Anyway, the change may take some time to propagate. If you're anxious to check if it's working on any particular article, just add ?action=purge
to the end of any article URL in your browser. Cheers,
Rkitko (
talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Please see this discussion about modifying the contrast ratio of the colors in the taxobox. Thanks! Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is "binomial name" as displayed in the taxobox redundant? I'm thinking it should just be "binomial". Plantdrew ( talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I am not sure where is the best place to ask this question, but anyway, maybe you can advice me. I found that the classification of the taxon "Cryptosporidium" in the Coccidiasina is probably not correct. I am not an expert on them, but I found several articles claiming that the Cryptosporidium used to be placed in the coccidians, but phylogenies based on, e.g. 18SrRNA contradict this (see Morrison, D. A. (2009). Evolution of the Apicomplexa: where are we now? Trends in Parasitology, 25(8), 375–382. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2009.05.010). Hence, my question: How should those cases be handled?
I mean, it is quite often the case that the classification of a species is ambiguous, but something like this doesn't seem to be reflected in the Taxobox. This can be quite misleading. In the case of Cryptosporidium, for example, medication against coccidians are apparently not working. So, knowing the taxonomic group to which these guys belong is important!
Thanks for your comments. Ilikelifesciences ( talk) 12:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Can taxobox be nested within other infoboxes or can other infoboxes be nested in taxobox? Most other boxes have parameters like: embedded, embed, module, child, or other parameter to make the box a parent or child of a nest. Also, what about coordinate parameters? Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
Should we add a section on the vocal range of animals e.g. roaring and calling in first octaves. -- 114.32.8.228 ( talk) 09:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone did something that makes white space between the taxobox and the article text. Doesn't look good. FunkMonk ( talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
At a recent editathon, the
British Library donated one hundred audio files of wildlife sounds (mostly bird songs and calls), and volunteers added them to articles. As can be see at
Common raven, some editors chose to
place the audio file in the taxobox, using the |image=
parameter. It would be better if we added a separate |audio=
parameter. Please can somebody add the necessary code to {{
Taxobox/core}}?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|audio=
to the taxobox. Also taxoboxes are already over-complicated and frequently too long to fit well in short articles.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Up to now, the taxobox code (for both manual and automated taxoboxes) prevented the name of the taxon from wrapping around in the rows in the taxobox which are of the form "Rank: Taxon_name".
This meant that a taxobox in an article like Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. traunsteinerioides had a row like this:
Subspecies: | D. m. subsp. traunsteinerioides |
making the taxobox wider than normal.
Taxon names in the title box and in the "Binomial name", "Trinomial name", divisions and "Synonyms" boxes have always line wrapped.
There seems no good reason not to allow line wrapping in the taxonomy rows of the taxobox except between an abbreviated genus name and the following specific name/epithet. I've altered Template:Taxonomy to produce this behaviour.
All the taxoboxes I've checked seem ok, but if there are any problems, please explain here and revert my edit. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps an additional option for an "informal group"/"non-monophyletic group" could be useful, e.g. Opisthobranchia and Heterocera. There are a few of these pages about and it'd be useful to have an option for formatting them. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 22:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We have added pronunciation to the Template:Drugbox. An example of this is here at Metoprolol. Wondering if anyone would oppose me doing this here? It is an effort to simplify the first sentences of our articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Whenever I make a page about a bacterium, whenever I or someone else puts Template:Taxonomy onto my page, it always treats bacteria as a kingdom and not a superkingdom. But Wikispecies treats bacteria (and archaea) as superkingdoms. Can somebody explain this? Here's the link to Wikispecies. [4] Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 13:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could a template editor change | range_map2 = {{{range_map2|}}}
to | range_map2 = {{{range_map2|{{{range map2|}}}}}}
I would like to be able to use the template name with a space instead of an underscore, as I can with other range map parameters. —
Eru·
tuon 00:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Mostly the capitalisation in the infobox is a redirect, because its inappropriately capitalised. E.g. "Least Concern" should be "Least concern". Can we tweak the template to stop this odd over-capitalisation from happening across Wikipedia please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
To deter taxobox-color format errors, the core templates should link the taxobox-color category in taxobox infoboxes, and show the invalid-color header, as Taxon . I am planning to shift the link for invalid taxobox-color category from {{ taxobox_colour}} into {{ Taxobox/core}} and {{ Taxonomy_key}}, to link " Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color" and thereby fix the error in taxobox column headers (which showed: colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: transparent; text-align:center; border: 1px solid red"). An infobox column style format cannot contain a wikilinked page or category, as of September 2016, because it shows the style text and disrupts the infobox format. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It is dumb to automatically link this. For instance, the link in the Platyceratidae article only links to Hall (surname) which has a huge number of entries. It could easily be that the authority is not listed at all, although in this case I think it is meant to be the author of this book who has an article at James Hall (paleontologist). Spinning Spark 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This has probably been debated before, but "Least Concern" isn't capitalised correctly. I noted it about three weeks ago. Our own article commences "A least concern (LC) species..." so we should fix the infobox to reduce the over-capitalisation. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Erutuon: recently replaced underscores with hyphens in the template documentation for parameters composed of multiple words (e.g. "range_map_caption"->"range map caption"). There's a new report that finds instances of invalid parameter names. Many of the invalid parameters are typos (e.g. classid), capitalization variants (Classis), or English rather than Latin terms (class), and won't be displayed in the taxobox until changed to a valid parameter name (classis). Spaces and underscores are functionally equivalent; the parameter displays with either character. However, the new report doesn't treat space and parameters equally; the current report is treating underscored parameters as invalid, with spaces as valid. But underscores are far more frequently used in the articles where Taxobox is deployed ("binomial authority" appears 268 times, "binomial_authority" 221,667 times). And from what I'm seeing, underscored parameters usually presented in the documention of templates, even if spaced parameters are supported.
Any objections to changing the documentation back to presenting underscored parameters as the default (and making any other changes necessary to treat underscores rather than space as valid in the new report)? Spaces are functional, and I'm not suggesting formally deprecating them now, but they are not the parameters that are usually used. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Asian golden cat | |
---|---|
Test; image_upright=0.5 applied by default to 2nd image & range map | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | C. temminckii
|
Binomial name | |
Catopuma temminckii | |
Distribution of the Asian golden cat |
Could this template be modified to give image sizes as upright=
values? A similar thing
was suggested at {{
Infobox Chinese}}. Perhaps a new parameter could be added, so that the existing image size parameters still work. —
Eru·
tuon 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
|upright=
would then be wrong. The set of templates (including {{
Automatic taxobox}}, {{
Speciesbox}}, etc.) could be modified to allow |upright=
, I guess, if there really is a need for this.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
upright=
is recommended instead. I don't quite understand what you mean about |upright=
being wrong; could you explain? —
Eru·
tuon 21:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
|upright=1.2
or |upright=0.75
to change the size of the image, rather than pixel sizes, right? I was thinking of straight upright
without a value. It would be better to use a more sensible parameter name rather than the historical use of |upright=
– |scale=
perhaps.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 00:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
|image upright=
, alias |image_upright=
, and |image2 upright=
, alias |image2_upright=
, to {{
Taxobox}} (but none of the other taxobox templates yet). The taxobox to the left has |image upright=0.5
. I'd prefer to call the parameters something like image scale
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 01:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)scale
would make a lot more sense, not only in the template but in the MediaWiki image syntax. —
Eru·
tuon 01:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
upright
is so widely used that it's a fixture now; thus the explanation at
MOS:IMGSIZE is all in terms of this name. I need to fix all the other taxobox templates before adding it to the documentation.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 01:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)|image width=
is deprecated; as you rightly pointed out above,
MOS:IMGSIZE is quite clear about absolute image sizes, so I think this is defensible, but we'll see what the reaction is.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 02:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
|image width=
as deprecated. I think it looks good. However, the range map parameters should also have associated |range map upright=
parameters. I should've mentioned that. —
Eru·
tuon 02:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
|range map upright=
parameters too? —
Eru·
tuon 23:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
|range map upright=
parameters, but as there are four allowed range maps (which I hadn't at first noticed), it will take a bit longer to edit them in, test the results, and document.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)|image upright=
is specified and any of the other 4 "upright" parameters (2nd image, 4 range maps) isn't, it defaults to the value of |image upright=
, since it seems to me that the default in an infobox should be that the width of all the subsequent images is the same as the first one. I assume you agree (I saw your thanks for my first attempt at this), but I'd welcome confirmation before trying to document this change. (The test taxobox to the right now shows this working.)|upright=
perhaps, which is the default for all images unless overridden by |image upright=
to |range map4 upright=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Alerting anybody with Template editor privileges (@ Peter coxhead:) to a edit request at Template_talk:Taxobox_colour#Colour_request_for_SAR_supergroup. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the parameter "variety" is used rather than "varietas", as would be consistent with all the other ranks that use Latin for their parameter names? Plantdrew ( talk) 16:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Can the image parameter in TemplateData be defined as a File type?
It probably should be, but I don't want to touch it myself before verifying that it isn't going to break something. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Is infraregnum equivalent to superdivisio? I guess no, but infraregnum is then missing. -- Obsuser ( talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
We need a field for a sound recording in the taxobox, right below the picture, or pictures. At the moment I'm using image2 for this, but it is not ideal. JMK ( talk) 12:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In the previous version, taxobox colours were set by taxa at different ranks/levels in a very ad hoc fashion – basically through "fixes" being successively added to the system (which was originally designed so that only kingdom/regnum set the taxobox colour, but this didn't work as modern clade-based classifications came to predominate higher levels of taxonomic hierarchies).
The current version sets the taxobox colour by looking up the hierarchy, i.e. in the reverse order that the levels/parameters would be shown in a taxobox, if all present:
The first of these parameters whose value (a taxon) has an entry in {{ Taxobox colour}} sets the colour of the taxobox. All levels are checked, unlike the unsystematic subset previously, and the lowest over-rides any higher up, again unlike the previous system.
Coupled with changes to the automated taxobox system (see Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 13#Major rewrite of the colour setting system), manual and automatic taxoboxes should now show taxobox colour in a more consistent fashion.
Incertae sedis taxa present a slight problem once multiple levels can be used to set the taxobox colour. The incertae sedis colour should only be used if the only colour setting taxa found are incertae sedis ones – if there's a colour setting taxon above an incertae sedis taxon, its colour should be used instead. Although this could be coded, it would distract from the clarity of the rest of the coding, so now the incertae sedis colour must always be added to a manual taxobox via |color_as=incertae sedis
. This is not too much of a problem, as there aren't many articles with this colour at present.
Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Plantdrew asked
in November 2016 why "varietas" wasn't allowed as a parameter. This has been on my "to-do" list since then; as no-one else has fixed it, I have just done so. Both |varietas=
and |varietas_authority=
are now accepted (as well as |variety=
and |variety_authority=
).
Peter coxhead (
talk) 09:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Species are not (no longer?) rendered in italics. Z440Xeon ( talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
|rank=species
, {{
Taxonomy}} does italicize the wikilinked taxon passed to it. However, for a species it's actually called with |rank=Species/noitalics
– the "noitalics" could be anything, it just stops {{
Taxonomy}} treating it as a species and italicizing it.@
Z440Xeon and
Plantdrew: (plus @
Smith609 and
Bob the Wikipedian: as you wrote most of the code originally) it's been on my "to do" list for some time to look at this again. The code is completely illogical. Each line in a manual taxobox is output by {{
Taxonomy}}, which looks at the rank for that line and adds italics if it's one of these: genus, ichnogenus, oogenus, subgenus, ichnosubgenus, oosubgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, ichnospecies, oospecies, subspecies, ichnosubspecies, or oosubspecies. But {{
Taxobox/core}} deliberately adds the string "/noitalics" to "genus", "subgenus", "sectio", "subsectio", "series", "subseries", "species" and "subspecies" before passing it to {{
Taxonomy}} so that the rank never actually matches one of those that is italicized. The "oo" and "ichno" ranks aren't handled by manual taxoboxes, so they are never passed to {{
Taxonomy}}. Since {{
Taxonomy}} is only called from {{
Taxobox/core}}, the effect is to render the check for an italicized rank pointless, since it's never passed one. See below; now changed.
One possibility would be to change the code to pass the actual rank to {{ Taxonomy}} which would then add italics to taxon names at appropriate ranks if and only if ' were not already present in the name. This would mean that existing manual taxoboxes where genus names, species names, etc. are italicized would still work, but that italics would be added if no manual formatting were already present. Would this be worth doing? Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
|name=
recently, which I think is what you are alluding to above, but only because I discovered the previous logic was muddled: in some cases the taxobox name defaulted to the taxon and in others to the page name, when these were different. I doubt that my code covers all cases properly either, given the variety of page title possible (scientific name of the target taxon, with or without disambiguation; English name, with or without disambiguation; scientific name of a higher monotypic rank, etc.) and the variety of values of |taxon=
, which can include disambiguation or a qualifier (like "/displayed" or "/?"). Again at some time we need to have a wider discussion, if enough interested editors can be found, on whether the default taxobox name should be the page title or the taxon when these are different. At present the intention of the code is to select the (undisambiguated) page title.I have now tidied up the illogical code explained above. It should not change the behaviour of any taxoboxes, but please revert and/or leave a message here if you notice any problems. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
IUCN and NatureServe often provide the information of population trends and since it's always good to document everything, I guess we can accommodate one additional parameter. -- QEDK ( 愛) 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
|trend=
. Including trend seems to be a practice that originated with PolBot and has been copied by a small number of editors in a small number of articles. I should note that I've been removing trend parameters as part of my taxobox cleanup efforts over the last 6 months; I'd estimate there were around 1200 instances of |trend=
when I began with a variety of non-standardized values (e.g., decreasing, down, downward), and I've mostly focused on removing the less used variants (only "down" present now).
Plantdrew (
talk) 18:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Fel free to participate in Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 14#Requested move 4 May 2017. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently when species or other taxons are listed in the subdivision section using either the {{ Taxon list}} or {{ Species list}} templates, the HTML includes custom styles to suppress the list bullets (although the lists are still indented as if they had bullets). This makes it hard to see where one species listing ends and another begins when they wrap over multiple lines. We should either not suppress the bullets or we should remove the indenting so the lines are less likely to wrap. Any opinions on which is the better option? (The talk pages for both of those templates redirect here.) Kaldari ( talk) 07:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
|bullets=
with the initial default no
. Assuming this works, we could then try to get a wider discussion on changing the default to yes
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 11:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Is there a good reason that the IUCN conservation status is over-capitalised in the Taxobox? E.g. I see "Least Concern" when the LC parameter is used, yet IUCN and Wikipedia itself does not capitalise "Concern", i.e. "species of "least concern"..." Shouldn't the taxobox render e.g. LC as "Least concern"? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, just throwing out a possibly crazy idea, but would it be useful for the box to have holotype as a parameter? Like for Luzon broad-toothed rat (Abditomys latidens (Sanborn, 1952)), one could write its holotype is at the Field Museum of Natural History, specimen FMNH 62347. Would this be useful? Umimmak ( talk) 03:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
|type_species=
and |type_genus=
. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to support types that are names based on specimens (for ranks above species), but not support types that are actually specimens (for species). However, I'm more inclined to resolve this inconsistency by removing support for higher rank types than by adding support for species types.
Plantdrew (
talk) 05:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)It seems this template and Template:Automatic taxobox wrap the infobox element inside a div. This is inconsistent with how other infoboxes behave and makes it harder to locate infoboxes in a page with user scripts and in MediaWiki's code. Is this intentional or can these be removed? Jdlrobson ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I've undone these changes for now. My tests suggest they cause extra blank lines to appear above a taxobox under some circumstances. For example
{{italic title}} {{taxobox ... }}
has a blank line above it in the cases I looked at with the change in place. Please test the changes in a sandbox, checking for cases with templates added above a taxobox. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
<p><br /></p>
just before the infobox table tag. If you remove the line break in the wikitext to give {{italictitle}}{{User:Kaldari/Taxobox|name = ''Aculepeira carbonarioides''}}
the generated <p><br /></p>
in the HTML goes away.{{italictitle}}
on separate lines in
User:Kaldari/sandbox3, then the extra blank line appears. Weird!@
Kaldari: I think there may be other places where this bug shows up. For example, {{
Clade}} now works by invoking a Lua module which generates wikitext for a table, so it's a two-step process. An extra blank line appears above the generated cladogram, and the resulting HTML shows the same odd <p><br /></p>
. {{
Cladex}} still works by directly generating wikitext, so it's a one-step process. No extra blank line appears above the generated cladogram. I hope you get some response to your bug report.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
<p><br /></p>
is not generated. This does seem to be some strange bug: when a transcluded template directly produces the wikitext for a table, all is ok. But if it transcludes another template to produce the wikitext for a table, an empty paragraph is produced above the table, unless it's wrapped in a div.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've applied the "nowiki" work-around in place of the "div" work-around to all 7 automated taxoboxes. See Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Fix for extra blank line before a taxobox. If any problems are noticed, please comment there. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The virus taxobox uses "virus_group =". That apparently follows the Baltimore classification scheme, yet his scheme labels them CLASSES, not groups. I recognize that I'm a newbie, but can somebody please change the template to "Baltimore_class =" rather than "virus_group ="? It's a no-brainer, and I'm astonished that it hasn't been changed before now. Thanks, Viroguy ( talk) 03:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
|virus_group=
to i
through vii
are:
I'll start anew at the left side. If I was going to remove parenthess it would be ALL of them EXCEPT those around the (+) and (-). However, in a small sample size, 2/3 of the medline references with ssRNA in the title and either + or - before that lacked parentheses. (2/3 really is misleading. It was literally 2 of the 3 didn't have parentheses!) Since both Negative-sense single-stranded RNA virus and Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus use parentheses, I think we should use (+) and (-), but eliminate all other parentheses. And, i hope to never again nead to spel parentheses. I also agree with not having the smaller font size. Thanks, Viroguy ( talk) 20:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should we add a parameter “infraregnum”? 66.82.144.144 ( talk) 15:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Contributors to this template may wish to cast an eye over the ongoing discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life. nagual design 00:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Does a taxobox belong in list articles (like List of parrots or List of cetacean species)? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 04:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
An edit to Template:Species_list/core that changed the style of taxon lists broke Template:Nested taxon list, so I undid it. Please note that this does not reflect any underlying opinion about style – please feel free to enact this change in a way that does not break other templates. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 08:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to collapse by default the taxobox in a species infobox? We have a lot of stuff (templates, images, an infobox) at the top of the Neanderthal article and the taxobox is taking up an unreasonable amount of it with its ten taxonomic levels. The result is that, at certain display resolutions, all images in the article are shifted. Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on Sea mink and I'm wondering whether it'd be better for the taxobox to use the drawing of the jaw fragment (as it does right now) or the animal-restoration drawing User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 20:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It appears this template is responsible for a ton of errors in the above linter error category. Do any peanuts know where to go to find the random stripped span? It doesn't look like it's directly in Taxobox or Taxobox/core, so it's in another sub-template. -- Izno ( talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Would someone be so kind as to do this? A number of use are moving pronunciation to the infoboxes to simplify the first sentence. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You can see pronunciation in an infobox here Pneumonia. It can definitely be referenced. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the various templates that produce lists of taxa ({{ Species list}}, {{ Taxon list}}, {{ Linked species list}}, etc.) are limited to displaying 20-30 taxa. I'm guessing this limitation might be due to expansion depth issues and could be solved via Lua? Peter coxhead, my apologies for bringing this up. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On further thought...is there a switch to collapse the taxa list templates? I don't think there is, and if that is indeed the case, 30 seems like a good limit for an uncollapsible list of synonyms. 03:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Done See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Taxon list templates updated. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Alas, I fail to see how the "|incomplete=" works in the taxon lists... My failed attempt is in Hyperolius marginatus. Micromesistius ( talk) 22:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
|incomplete=yes
. I've updated the documentation for this set of templates; it wasn't clear before.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we update Taxobox, so that it calls the image from Wikidata, if none is specified locally? This seems to work well on other Wikipedias, such as Swedish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
taxobox}}
has so many transclusions, setting up a maintenance category for missing images would be the best option I think. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)"if the image hasn't been vetted here before being added"This condition can never apply, because images are vetted before being added to Wikkidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
A deeper problem is created by the radical incompatibility between our and Wikidata's approaches to taxonomy. (Wikidata's seems from discussions at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy to be heavily influenced by an editor banned here for actions including insisting that articles be about names not taxa.) Wikidata regularly has separate items for scientific names that are synonyms and so refer to the same taxon, although claiming that each item is an instance of "taxon". It's then quite arbitrary as to which name the article links, images, etc. get attached. As far as I know, all the Wikipedias have articles about taxa, not names (although they differ in how they handle monotypic taxa). These two approaches are not readily compatible. Where in Wikidata should any images of Aristaloe aristata be placed? At Aristaloe aristata (Q39719918) or at Aloe aristata (Q133923)? Or even at Aristaloe (Q39150176) given that the genus is currently monospecific? Why is the commons category Aristaloe aristata attached to the Wikidata item named "Aloe aristata" and not the item named "Aristaloe aristata"?
See Rusty-throated parrotbill (Q28641950), Sinosuthora przewalskii (Q27075562) and Paradoxornis przewalskii (Q3316824) for another example. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The conservation status stuff should not be treating things like "least concern" as proper names, just given in sentence case like other infobox parameter output. This has been RfCed before. The examples shown in the table in the docs aren't even consistent, with several shown in sentence case already, but many in "Title Case". IUCN may do this stuff in their own house style but it's not WP's house style, and IUCN is not the only issuer of conservation status assessments; several of the ones this template supports directly are not even IUCN-recognized anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:44, 12 December 2017 (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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
For the "conservation status" what about allowing the option to tag a species as invasive? I was thinking that this would be worth mentioning, among many others, on cat. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never really looked into Wikipedia guidelines for species articles, but could someone point me to where they might be? This set of edits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_bean_aphid&diff=625148719&oldid=625141779) piqued my interest. One user claims that information in the taxobox should also be written as prose in the article as well. This seems awfully redundant in addition to seeming like too much information about the various taxonomic levels for a species article anyways. I'm just wondering if there is a good set of guidelines written somewhere that I could lead the user to and also keep as future reference when dealing with insect taxonomy related info. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I keep coming accross instances of this template with, for example, |binomial_authority=(
Linnaeus, 1758)
. This is harmful, and such values should be entered into two separate parameters, with the year in |binomial_date=
, for improved
data granularity. However, contrary to the template's documentation, this appears not to work. Have I misunderstood something, or is there a bug?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly due to this change by @ Peter coxhead:, many (most?) taxobox image captions seem to have been automatically shifted to left alignment (see for instance Garter snake or Rose or Crocodilia, although Reptile appears to still be centered). This issue, while not crucial, should be addressed ASAP to ensure stylistic congruity and aesthetics, i.e. captions should be centered by default unless explicitly coded for alternate alignment. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
At the article te:నల్ల_బెండ, Taxobox breaks. Why is it so? I have copied the temmplate as is, and also, it works for all fields in English, once i start adding Telugu, it breaks. -- Rahmanuddin Shaik ( talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
regnum
parameter to set the colour of the taxobox. In your example, changing regnum
from "వృక్ష సామ్రాజ్యం" to "Plantae" fixes the problem. You will need to adjust the template code (in the Telugu version of {{
taxobox colour}}) to recognise "వృక్ష సామ్రాజ్యం" and other kingdoms instead of "Plantae", "Animalia", etc. --
Stemonitis (
talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)I've noticed many taxoboxes use piped links or link suffixes to link to the common names of taxa, for example [[Animal]]ia or [[Fly|Diptera]]. In my experience this becomes problematic at lower levels because article organization sometimes changes, resulting in a difference between the linked article and the intended taxon. What is the rationale for using piped links are used in this way? Augurar ( talk) 08:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In some taxoboxes, such as the one at Tyrannosaurus, there's a dagger (†) next to a few of the classification names. As someone who isn't familiar with paleontology, I had no idea what this meant, and it took me awhile to figure out that it designated an extinct taxon. It's useful information that non-specialist users would find valuable, so I think we should try to make it more accessible. I can think of two ways to do this:
Perhaps some more experienced editors could weigh in on which might be a better option? And once a decision is made, maybe we could attract the attention of someone with a bot? Origamidesigner ( talk) 01:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The template: {{ Taxonomy/Cacopinae}} is deprecated, and yet a few other taxonomy templates transclude it. [1]I have no idea where to fix this, since the toolserver link [2] doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) 11 January 2014
I am trying to edit some Foraminifera orders to add the class and make the taxonomy consistent across Wikipedia and tied in to a source. I am trying to add this text to the Order Rotaliida's taxobox, to replace the current taxonomy scheme:
| domain = [[Eukarya]] | regnum = [[SAR supergroup|SAR]] | supergroup = [[Rhizaria]] | phylum = [[Foraminifera]] | classis = [[Globothalamea]]
However, every time I preview I get some weird column spans instead of a taxonomy box. What is going on here?
I also wanted to use a set of code for inserting the citation for this taxonomy, WoRMS use of the Foram DB, but the code does not generate a citation. Maybe this is tied in with the prior error? Can I place this code in the taxonomy box? It should go after the class, as it is specifically a citation for the placement of the order in a Foram class.
{{cite WoRMS |author= Pawlowski, Holzmann, Tyszka|year= 2013|title= Globothalamea|id= 744104|accessdate= January 18, 2015|db=forams}}
Any help would be appreciated.
MicroPaLeo ( talk) 21:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to call things unranked without a source that calls them unranked. It is not appropriate for a general resource to use my or your original research for any reason. I can only use an established source, and for taxoboxes it cannot be primary research. Wikipedia calls SAR a kingdom in its taxobox, and attaches a source to this, the automatic taxobox uses kingdom, also. If this is wrong, it can be fixed. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not note that I was emotionally uncalm, but as you have moved onto my emotional stability, I stopped reading--a little passive-aggressive and off topic for my tastes. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 04:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add a hidden cleanup category to this template, but I'd like to get consensus here first. The category would be placed if the taxobox doesn't have anything whatsoever about the IUCN Red List status: any of the normal options, even
Data Deficient, would prevent the category from appearing, and we could also have a parameter (e.g. omitiucn=yes
) to prevent the category from appearing if we had a good reason to omit the Red List. Basically, the category would be used just to find pages where we haven't addressed Red List status yet.
Nyttend (
talk) 18:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
status = NE
(not evaluated), but I've never felt that it's a useful distinction as most species are not evaluated and it would just add unnecessary information to the taxobox. The same would be true for species not evaluated under any of the other systems -- the point is to highlight species of conservation concern. Instead of a category that couldn't distinguish between those articles that shouldn't have a conservation status box because they're not evaluated and those that should but don't yet, a simpler solution is to get someone to scrape the data from IUCN for the species they have evaluated and compare it to the articles we have; if our article has a conservation status that agrees with the current IUCN list, it's removed from the list and the remainder are left for humans to check over. As for
Eremophila youngii,
WP:SOFIXIT. I just don't see the need or utility of a category for this purpose.
Rkitko (
talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)How might we add a |module=
parameter to this template, so that, for example, on
Enterobacter aerogenes, the {{
Bacterial labs}} template may be embedded?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Curious what's the rationale behind italicization of taxa in the taxobox. Some Wikipedias, like the Spanish and French, italicize all taxa, such as family names (see es:Dicentra and fr:Dicentra), while the English, German, and Portuguese Wikipedias italicize only the genus and species names (see Dicentra, pt:Dicentra and de:Herzblumen). Is there a reason for this, or is it just random formatting choices made by editors early in the history of these Wikipedias? — Eru· tuon 02:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is the Conservation status header left aligned while the others (Scientific classification, Binomial name) centered? See any species page, Etheostoma duryi for example. Was this a recent change? I had thought that it was centered as well, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly. Anyways, it seems odd to me that it wouldn't be centered. Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
status =
parameter for an extinct species, but then again I'm not the most observant person. Not sure what broke it, as
Template:Taxobox/species, which produces the conservation status link, had not been edited since 2013. Anyway, the change may take some time to propagate. If you're anxious to check if it's working on any particular article, just add ?action=purge
to the end of any article URL in your browser. Cheers,
Rkitko (
talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Please see this discussion about modifying the contrast ratio of the colors in the taxobox. Thanks! Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is "binomial name" as displayed in the taxobox redundant? I'm thinking it should just be "binomial". Plantdrew ( talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I am not sure where is the best place to ask this question, but anyway, maybe you can advice me. I found that the classification of the taxon "Cryptosporidium" in the Coccidiasina is probably not correct. I am not an expert on them, but I found several articles claiming that the Cryptosporidium used to be placed in the coccidians, but phylogenies based on, e.g. 18SrRNA contradict this (see Morrison, D. A. (2009). Evolution of the Apicomplexa: where are we now? Trends in Parasitology, 25(8), 375–382. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2009.05.010). Hence, my question: How should those cases be handled?
I mean, it is quite often the case that the classification of a species is ambiguous, but something like this doesn't seem to be reflected in the Taxobox. This can be quite misleading. In the case of Cryptosporidium, for example, medication against coccidians are apparently not working. So, knowing the taxonomic group to which these guys belong is important!
Thanks for your comments. Ilikelifesciences ( talk) 12:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Can taxobox be nested within other infoboxes or can other infoboxes be nested in taxobox? Most other boxes have parameters like: embedded, embed, module, child, or other parameter to make the box a parent or child of a nest. Also, what about coordinate parameters? Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
Should we add a section on the vocal range of animals e.g. roaring and calling in first octaves. -- 114.32.8.228 ( talk) 09:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone did something that makes white space between the taxobox and the article text. Doesn't look good. FunkMonk ( talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
At a recent editathon, the
British Library donated one hundred audio files of wildlife sounds (mostly bird songs and calls), and volunteers added them to articles. As can be see at
Common raven, some editors chose to
place the audio file in the taxobox, using the |image=
parameter. It would be better if we added a separate |audio=
parameter. Please can somebody add the necessary code to {{
Taxobox/core}}?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|audio=
to the taxobox. Also taxoboxes are already over-complicated and frequently too long to fit well in short articles.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Up to now, the taxobox code (for both manual and automated taxoboxes) prevented the name of the taxon from wrapping around in the rows in the taxobox which are of the form "Rank: Taxon_name".
This meant that a taxobox in an article like Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. traunsteinerioides had a row like this:
Subspecies: | D. m. subsp. traunsteinerioides |
making the taxobox wider than normal.
Taxon names in the title box and in the "Binomial name", "Trinomial name", divisions and "Synonyms" boxes have always line wrapped.
There seems no good reason not to allow line wrapping in the taxonomy rows of the taxobox except between an abbreviated genus name and the following specific name/epithet. I've altered Template:Taxonomy to produce this behaviour.
All the taxoboxes I've checked seem ok, but if there are any problems, please explain here and revert my edit. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps an additional option for an "informal group"/"non-monophyletic group" could be useful, e.g. Opisthobranchia and Heterocera. There are a few of these pages about and it'd be useful to have an option for formatting them. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 22:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We have added pronunciation to the Template:Drugbox. An example of this is here at Metoprolol. Wondering if anyone would oppose me doing this here? It is an effort to simplify the first sentences of our articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Whenever I make a page about a bacterium, whenever I or someone else puts Template:Taxonomy onto my page, it always treats bacteria as a kingdom and not a superkingdom. But Wikispecies treats bacteria (and archaea) as superkingdoms. Can somebody explain this? Here's the link to Wikispecies. [4] Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 13:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could a template editor change | range_map2 = {{{range_map2|}}}
to | range_map2 = {{{range_map2|{{{range map2|}}}}}}
I would like to be able to use the template name with a space instead of an underscore, as I can with other range map parameters. —
Eru·
tuon 00:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Mostly the capitalisation in the infobox is a redirect, because its inappropriately capitalised. E.g. "Least Concern" should be "Least concern". Can we tweak the template to stop this odd over-capitalisation from happening across Wikipedia please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
To deter taxobox-color format errors, the core templates should link the taxobox-color category in taxobox infoboxes, and show the invalid-color header, as Taxon . I am planning to shift the link for invalid taxobox-color category from {{ taxobox_colour}} into {{ Taxobox/core}} and {{ Taxonomy_key}}, to link " Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color" and thereby fix the error in taxobox column headers (which showed: colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: transparent; text-align:center; border: 1px solid red"). An infobox column style format cannot contain a wikilinked page or category, as of September 2016, because it shows the style text and disrupts the infobox format. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It is dumb to automatically link this. For instance, the link in the Platyceratidae article only links to Hall (surname) which has a huge number of entries. It could easily be that the authority is not listed at all, although in this case I think it is meant to be the author of this book who has an article at James Hall (paleontologist). Spinning Spark 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This has probably been debated before, but "Least Concern" isn't capitalised correctly. I noted it about three weeks ago. Our own article commences "A least concern (LC) species..." so we should fix the infobox to reduce the over-capitalisation. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Erutuon: recently replaced underscores with hyphens in the template documentation for parameters composed of multiple words (e.g. "range_map_caption"->"range map caption"). There's a new report that finds instances of invalid parameter names. Many of the invalid parameters are typos (e.g. classid), capitalization variants (Classis), or English rather than Latin terms (class), and won't be displayed in the taxobox until changed to a valid parameter name (classis). Spaces and underscores are functionally equivalent; the parameter displays with either character. However, the new report doesn't treat space and parameters equally; the current report is treating underscored parameters as invalid, with spaces as valid. But underscores are far more frequently used in the articles where Taxobox is deployed ("binomial authority" appears 268 times, "binomial_authority" 221,667 times). And from what I'm seeing, underscored parameters usually presented in the documention of templates, even if spaced parameters are supported.
Any objections to changing the documentation back to presenting underscored parameters as the default (and making any other changes necessary to treat underscores rather than space as valid in the new report)? Spaces are functional, and I'm not suggesting formally deprecating them now, but they are not the parameters that are usually used. Plantdrew ( talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Asian golden cat | |
---|---|
Test; image_upright=0.5 applied by default to 2nd image & range map | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | C. temminckii
|
Binomial name | |
Catopuma temminckii | |
Distribution of the Asian golden cat |
Could this template be modified to give image sizes as upright=
values? A similar thing
was suggested at {{
Infobox Chinese}}. Perhaps a new parameter could be added, so that the existing image size parameters still work. —
Eru·
tuon 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
|upright=
would then be wrong. The set of templates (including {{
Automatic taxobox}}, {{
Speciesbox}}, etc.) could be modified to allow |upright=
, I guess, if there really is a need for this.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
upright=
is recommended instead. I don't quite understand what you mean about |upright=
being wrong; could you explain? —
Eru·
tuon 21:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
|upright=1.2
or |upright=0.75
to change the size of the image, rather than pixel sizes, right? I was thinking of straight upright
without a value. It would be better to use a more sensible parameter name rather than the historical use of |upright=
– |scale=
perhaps.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 00:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
|image upright=
, alias |image_upright=
, and |image2 upright=
, alias |image2_upright=
, to {{
Taxobox}} (but none of the other taxobox templates yet). The taxobox to the left has |image upright=0.5
. I'd prefer to call the parameters something like image scale
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 01:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)scale
would make a lot more sense, not only in the template but in the MediaWiki image syntax. —
Eru·
tuon 01:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
upright
is so widely used that it's a fixture now; thus the explanation at
MOS:IMGSIZE is all in terms of this name. I need to fix all the other taxobox templates before adding it to the documentation.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 01:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)|image width=
is deprecated; as you rightly pointed out above,
MOS:IMGSIZE is quite clear about absolute image sizes, so I think this is defensible, but we'll see what the reaction is.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 02:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
|image width=
as deprecated. I think it looks good. However, the range map parameters should also have associated |range map upright=
parameters. I should've mentioned that. —
Eru·
tuon 02:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
|range map upright=
parameters too? —
Eru·
tuon 23:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
|range map upright=
parameters, but as there are four allowed range maps (which I hadn't at first noticed), it will take a bit longer to edit them in, test the results, and document.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)|image upright=
is specified and any of the other 4 "upright" parameters (2nd image, 4 range maps) isn't, it defaults to the value of |image upright=
, since it seems to me that the default in an infobox should be that the width of all the subsequent images is the same as the first one. I assume you agree (I saw your thanks for my first attempt at this), but I'd welcome confirmation before trying to document this change. (The test taxobox to the right now shows this working.)|upright=
perhaps, which is the default for all images unless overridden by |image upright=
to |range map4 upright=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Alerting anybody with Template editor privileges (@ Peter coxhead:) to a edit request at Template_talk:Taxobox_colour#Colour_request_for_SAR_supergroup. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the parameter "variety" is used rather than "varietas", as would be consistent with all the other ranks that use Latin for their parameter names? Plantdrew ( talk) 16:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Can the image parameter in TemplateData be defined as a File type?
It probably should be, but I don't want to touch it myself before verifying that it isn't going to break something. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Is infraregnum equivalent to superdivisio? I guess no, but infraregnum is then missing. -- Obsuser ( talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
We need a field for a sound recording in the taxobox, right below the picture, or pictures. At the moment I'm using image2 for this, but it is not ideal. JMK ( talk) 12:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In the previous version, taxobox colours were set by taxa at different ranks/levels in a very ad hoc fashion – basically through "fixes" being successively added to the system (which was originally designed so that only kingdom/regnum set the taxobox colour, but this didn't work as modern clade-based classifications came to predominate higher levels of taxonomic hierarchies).
The current version sets the taxobox colour by looking up the hierarchy, i.e. in the reverse order that the levels/parameters would be shown in a taxobox, if all present:
The first of these parameters whose value (a taxon) has an entry in {{ Taxobox colour}} sets the colour of the taxobox. All levels are checked, unlike the unsystematic subset previously, and the lowest over-rides any higher up, again unlike the previous system.
Coupled with changes to the automated taxobox system (see Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 13#Major rewrite of the colour setting system), manual and automatic taxoboxes should now show taxobox colour in a more consistent fashion.
Incertae sedis taxa present a slight problem once multiple levels can be used to set the taxobox colour. The incertae sedis colour should only be used if the only colour setting taxa found are incertae sedis ones – if there's a colour setting taxon above an incertae sedis taxon, its colour should be used instead. Although this could be coded, it would distract from the clarity of the rest of the coding, so now the incertae sedis colour must always be added to a manual taxobox via |color_as=incertae sedis
. This is not too much of a problem, as there aren't many articles with this colour at present.
Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Plantdrew asked
in November 2016 why "varietas" wasn't allowed as a parameter. This has been on my "to-do" list since then; as no-one else has fixed it, I have just done so. Both |varietas=
and |varietas_authority=
are now accepted (as well as |variety=
and |variety_authority=
).
Peter coxhead (
talk) 09:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Species are not (no longer?) rendered in italics. Z440Xeon ( talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
|rank=species
, {{
Taxonomy}} does italicize the wikilinked taxon passed to it. However, for a species it's actually called with |rank=Species/noitalics
– the "noitalics" could be anything, it just stops {{
Taxonomy}} treating it as a species and italicizing it.@
Z440Xeon and
Plantdrew: (plus @
Smith609 and
Bob the Wikipedian: as you wrote most of the code originally) it's been on my "to do" list for some time to look at this again. The code is completely illogical. Each line in a manual taxobox is output by {{
Taxonomy}}, which looks at the rank for that line and adds italics if it's one of these: genus, ichnogenus, oogenus, subgenus, ichnosubgenus, oosubgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, ichnospecies, oospecies, subspecies, ichnosubspecies, or oosubspecies. But {{
Taxobox/core}} deliberately adds the string "/noitalics" to "genus", "subgenus", "sectio", "subsectio", "series", "subseries", "species" and "subspecies" before passing it to {{
Taxonomy}} so that the rank never actually matches one of those that is italicized. The "oo" and "ichno" ranks aren't handled by manual taxoboxes, so they are never passed to {{
Taxonomy}}. Since {{
Taxonomy}} is only called from {{
Taxobox/core}}, the effect is to render the check for an italicized rank pointless, since it's never passed one. See below; now changed.
One possibility would be to change the code to pass the actual rank to {{ Taxonomy}} which would then add italics to taxon names at appropriate ranks if and only if ' were not already present in the name. This would mean that existing manual taxoboxes where genus names, species names, etc. are italicized would still work, but that italics would be added if no manual formatting were already present. Would this be worth doing? Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
|name=
recently, which I think is what you are alluding to above, but only because I discovered the previous logic was muddled: in some cases the taxobox name defaulted to the taxon and in others to the page name, when these were different. I doubt that my code covers all cases properly either, given the variety of page title possible (scientific name of the target taxon, with or without disambiguation; English name, with or without disambiguation; scientific name of a higher monotypic rank, etc.) and the variety of values of |taxon=
, which can include disambiguation or a qualifier (like "/displayed" or "/?"). Again at some time we need to have a wider discussion, if enough interested editors can be found, on whether the default taxobox name should be the page title or the taxon when these are different. At present the intention of the code is to select the (undisambiguated) page title.I have now tidied up the illogical code explained above. It should not change the behaviour of any taxoboxes, but please revert and/or leave a message here if you notice any problems. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
IUCN and NatureServe often provide the information of population trends and since it's always good to document everything, I guess we can accommodate one additional parameter. -- QEDK ( 愛) 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
|trend=
. Including trend seems to be a practice that originated with PolBot and has been copied by a small number of editors in a small number of articles. I should note that I've been removing trend parameters as part of my taxobox cleanup efforts over the last 6 months; I'd estimate there were around 1200 instances of |trend=
when I began with a variety of non-standardized values (e.g., decreasing, down, downward), and I've mostly focused on removing the less used variants (only "down" present now).
Plantdrew (
talk) 18:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Fel free to participate in Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 14#Requested move 4 May 2017. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently when species or other taxons are listed in the subdivision section using either the {{ Taxon list}} or {{ Species list}} templates, the HTML includes custom styles to suppress the list bullets (although the lists are still indented as if they had bullets). This makes it hard to see where one species listing ends and another begins when they wrap over multiple lines. We should either not suppress the bullets or we should remove the indenting so the lines are less likely to wrap. Any opinions on which is the better option? (The talk pages for both of those templates redirect here.) Kaldari ( talk) 07:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
|bullets=
with the initial default no
. Assuming this works, we could then try to get a wider discussion on changing the default to yes
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 11:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Is there a good reason that the IUCN conservation status is over-capitalised in the Taxobox? E.g. I see "Least Concern" when the LC parameter is used, yet IUCN and Wikipedia itself does not capitalise "Concern", i.e. "species of "least concern"..." Shouldn't the taxobox render e.g. LC as "Least concern"? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, just throwing out a possibly crazy idea, but would it be useful for the box to have holotype as a parameter? Like for Luzon broad-toothed rat (Abditomys latidens (Sanborn, 1952)), one could write its holotype is at the Field Museum of Natural History, specimen FMNH 62347. Would this be useful? Umimmak ( talk) 03:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
|type_species=
and |type_genus=
. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to support types that are names based on specimens (for ranks above species), but not support types that are actually specimens (for species). However, I'm more inclined to resolve this inconsistency by removing support for higher rank types than by adding support for species types.
Plantdrew (
talk) 05:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)It seems this template and Template:Automatic taxobox wrap the infobox element inside a div. This is inconsistent with how other infoboxes behave and makes it harder to locate infoboxes in a page with user scripts and in MediaWiki's code. Is this intentional or can these be removed? Jdlrobson ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I've undone these changes for now. My tests suggest they cause extra blank lines to appear above a taxobox under some circumstances. For example
{{italic title}} {{taxobox ... }}
has a blank line above it in the cases I looked at with the change in place. Please test the changes in a sandbox, checking for cases with templates added above a taxobox. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
<p><br /></p>
just before the infobox table tag. If you remove the line break in the wikitext to give {{italictitle}}{{User:Kaldari/Taxobox|name = ''Aculepeira carbonarioides''}}
the generated <p><br /></p>
in the HTML goes away.{{italictitle}}
on separate lines in
User:Kaldari/sandbox3, then the extra blank line appears. Weird!@
Kaldari: I think there may be other places where this bug shows up. For example, {{
Clade}} now works by invoking a Lua module which generates wikitext for a table, so it's a two-step process. An extra blank line appears above the generated cladogram, and the resulting HTML shows the same odd <p><br /></p>
. {{
Cladex}} still works by directly generating wikitext, so it's a one-step process. No extra blank line appears above the generated cladogram. I hope you get some response to your bug report.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
<p><br /></p>
is not generated. This does seem to be some strange bug: when a transcluded template directly produces the wikitext for a table, all is ok. But if it transcludes another template to produce the wikitext for a table, an empty paragraph is produced above the table, unless it's wrapped in a div.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've applied the "nowiki" work-around in place of the "div" work-around to all 7 automated taxoboxes. See Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Fix for extra blank line before a taxobox. If any problems are noticed, please comment there. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The virus taxobox uses "virus_group =". That apparently follows the Baltimore classification scheme, yet his scheme labels them CLASSES, not groups. I recognize that I'm a newbie, but can somebody please change the template to "Baltimore_class =" rather than "virus_group ="? It's a no-brainer, and I'm astonished that it hasn't been changed before now. Thanks, Viroguy ( talk) 03:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
|virus_group=
to i
through vii
are:
I'll start anew at the left side. If I was going to remove parenthess it would be ALL of them EXCEPT those around the (+) and (-). However, in a small sample size, 2/3 of the medline references with ssRNA in the title and either + or - before that lacked parentheses. (2/3 really is misleading. It was literally 2 of the 3 didn't have parentheses!) Since both Negative-sense single-stranded RNA virus and Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus use parentheses, I think we should use (+) and (-), but eliminate all other parentheses. And, i hope to never again nead to spel parentheses. I also agree with not having the smaller font size. Thanks, Viroguy ( talk) 20:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should we add a parameter “infraregnum”? 66.82.144.144 ( talk) 15:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Contributors to this template may wish to cast an eye over the ongoing discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life. nagual design 00:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Does a taxobox belong in list articles (like List of parrots or List of cetacean species)? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 04:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
An edit to Template:Species_list/core that changed the style of taxon lists broke Template:Nested taxon list, so I undid it. Please note that this does not reflect any underlying opinion about style – please feel free to enact this change in a way that does not break other templates. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 08:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to collapse by default the taxobox in a species infobox? We have a lot of stuff (templates, images, an infobox) at the top of the Neanderthal article and the taxobox is taking up an unreasonable amount of it with its ten taxonomic levels. The result is that, at certain display resolutions, all images in the article are shifted. Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on Sea mink and I'm wondering whether it'd be better for the taxobox to use the drawing of the jaw fragment (as it does right now) or the animal-restoration drawing User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 20:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It appears this template is responsible for a ton of errors in the above linter error category. Do any peanuts know where to go to find the random stripped span? It doesn't look like it's directly in Taxobox or Taxobox/core, so it's in another sub-template. -- Izno ( talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Would someone be so kind as to do this? A number of use are moving pronunciation to the infoboxes to simplify the first sentence. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You can see pronunciation in an infobox here Pneumonia. It can definitely be referenced. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the various templates that produce lists of taxa ({{ Species list}}, {{ Taxon list}}, {{ Linked species list}}, etc.) are limited to displaying 20-30 taxa. I'm guessing this limitation might be due to expansion depth issues and could be solved via Lua? Peter coxhead, my apologies for bringing this up. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On further thought...is there a switch to collapse the taxa list templates? I don't think there is, and if that is indeed the case, 30 seems like a good limit for an uncollapsible list of synonyms. 03:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Done See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Taxon list templates updated. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Alas, I fail to see how the "|incomplete=" works in the taxon lists... My failed attempt is in Hyperolius marginatus. Micromesistius ( talk) 22:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
|incomplete=yes
. I've updated the documentation for this set of templates; it wasn't clear before.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we update Taxobox, so that it calls the image from Wikidata, if none is specified locally? This seems to work well on other Wikipedias, such as Swedish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
taxobox}}
has so many transclusions, setting up a maintenance category for missing images would be the best option I think. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)"if the image hasn't been vetted here before being added"This condition can never apply, because images are vetted before being added to Wikkidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
A deeper problem is created by the radical incompatibility between our and Wikidata's approaches to taxonomy. (Wikidata's seems from discussions at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy to be heavily influenced by an editor banned here for actions including insisting that articles be about names not taxa.) Wikidata regularly has separate items for scientific names that are synonyms and so refer to the same taxon, although claiming that each item is an instance of "taxon". It's then quite arbitrary as to which name the article links, images, etc. get attached. As far as I know, all the Wikipedias have articles about taxa, not names (although they differ in how they handle monotypic taxa). These two approaches are not readily compatible. Where in Wikidata should any images of Aristaloe aristata be placed? At Aristaloe aristata (Q39719918) or at Aloe aristata (Q133923)? Or even at Aristaloe (Q39150176) given that the genus is currently monospecific? Why is the commons category Aristaloe aristata attached to the Wikidata item named "Aloe aristata" and not the item named "Aristaloe aristata"?
See Rusty-throated parrotbill (Q28641950), Sinosuthora przewalskii (Q27075562) and Paradoxornis przewalskii (Q3316824) for another example. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The conservation status stuff should not be treating things like "least concern" as proper names, just given in sentence case like other infobox parameter output. This has been RfCed before. The examples shown in the table in the docs aren't even consistent, with several shown in sentence case already, but many in "Title Case". IUCN may do this stuff in their own house style but it's not WP's house style, and IUCN is not the only issuer of conservation status assessments; several of the ones this template supports directly are not even IUCN-recognized anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)