![]() | 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
I think our current system of coloring taxoboxes is overly complicated and should be simplified. We have four different yellows, three different greens, and three different blues, for example. If I see that a taxobox is yellow, am I realistically going to remember which shade of yellow means what and actually be able to recognize that shade of yellow and say "Ah, this mush be an Opisthokonta?" No, not in a million years. Color-coding infoboxes in only useful when there is a clear intensity scale, like for Infobox hurricane, or they are limited to 3 or 4 colors that folks can actually recognize and easily distinguish. Otherwise, it serves no purpose for the reader. I would like to propose that we simplify on the following scheme:
I don't really care about the specific colors. Mostly I just want to simplify it. Thoughts? Kaldari ( talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Animalia | rgb(235,235,210) | |
---|---|---|
Archaea | rgb(195,245,250) | also Nanoarchaeota (Nanarchaeota), Korarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota |
Archaeplastida | rgb(180,250,180) | also Plantae and Viridiplantae |
Bacteria | rgb(220,235,245) | |
Eukaryota | rgb(245,215,255) | For eukaryotes with no other colour defined, including Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta |
Fungi | rgb(145,250,250) | |
Ichnotaxa | rgb(230,222,214) | |
incertae sedis | rgb(250,240,230) | |
SAR | rgb(200,250,80) | also Harosa, Chromalveolata |
Ootaxa | rgb(250,250,220) | |
Viruses | rgb(250,250,190) | also Viroids |
How about something like this:
Viruses | |
---|---|
Bacteria | |
Archaea, etc. | |
Animalia | |
Fungi | |
Archaeplastida, etc. | |
other | |
Colours not produced by this template: | |
Ichnotaxa | |
Ootaxa |
@ Peter coxhead: ^ Would that be a good compromise? Kaldari ( talk) 07:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
In order to simplify the color schemes used by this template, it is proposed that Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta be rolled up into Eukaryota. This will affect approximately 300 articles. The new color scheme will be:
Viruses | rgb(250,250,190) | also Viroids |
---|---|---|
Bacteria | rgb(220,235,245) | |
Archaea | rgb(195,245,250) | also Nanoarchaeota (Nanarchaeota), Korarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota |
Eukaryota | rgb(245,215,255) | For eukaryotes with no other colour defined, including Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta |
Animalia | rgb(235,235,210) | |
Fungi | rgb(145,250,250) | |
Archaeplastida | rgb(180,250,180) | also Plantae and Viridiplantae |
SAR | rgb(200,250,80) | also Chromalveolata |
incertae sedis | rgb(250,240,230) | |
Colours not produced by this template: | ||
Ichnotaxa | rgb(215,240,210) | |
Ootaxa | rgb(250,250,220) |
If you have an opinion on this, state it below. Kaldari ( talk) 05:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I updated the sandbox templates. The results can be seen at Template:Taxobox/testcases. (The only noticeable difference is for Fonticula, the last example.) Kaldari ( talk) 18:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed varying degrees of in/consistency of having or excluding a leading &
nbsp;
for the 3 |*_ref=
parameters. Do we want to:
|*_ref=
, orThe current documentation suggests #2.
If #1 is desired, I can rig the template so it forces 1 nbsp, without duplicating an existing one.
Since I'm going through all the {{ IUCN}} transclusions, I'd like to know which format to standardize to. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initially asked here.) I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search. Thanks in advance, RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statuses for New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) needs updating, as there are now different Categories. Perhaps it needs a version the way that IUCN does, to not leave old pages in the lurch? Or perhaps that just means they need updating as well. Nessie ( talk) 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Refer to Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions for background, and Template talk:Disambiguation and Template talk:Infobox settlement for some background on possible ways forward.
Since the RfC on short descriptions from WikiData was closed with consensus to provide local Wikipedia short descriptions, eventually for all articles, there have been several applications of template driven short descriptions for similar groups of articles. Notably places are served by a default short description produced by Template:Infobox settlement, which, while not perfect, does do a reasonable job most of the time of disambiguating place articles with an infobox. Local short descriptions can be provided to override the default short description where this will work better, and where an editor is willing to do the additional work.
There are a large number of articles on taxonomic groups, and the taxobox could be an efficient way of adding short descriptions to a large number of articles very quickly and efficiently, in a way that will automatically update as the taxonomy is revised.
I open this suggestion for discussion as to how the data already available in taxoboxes can be combined to create useful short descriptions at various levels.
In the case of a species (or genus), for example a useful short description for Jasus lalandii might be: "Species of spiny lobster in the family Palinuridae", where species and Palinuridae are directly available from the taxobox, but the common name for Palinuridae, ie "spiny lobster" is more difficult to reach.
Families might be given as members of an order, as for Palinuridae: "A family of marine crustaceans in the order Decapoda". Here again, family and Decapoda are easy to extract. Crustaceans not so easy, though Crustacea is simple enough. Marine may be difficult.
At this stage this is brainstorming to see if it is reasonably practicable to automate most of the taxa. Doing it all manually is the default option, but not a very attractive one. Cneers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Something in Taxobox (also speciesbox, etc) is generating lint errors claiming misnested <small>
tags in, well, tons of things. I THINK it's stemming from whatever code formats the various authority
arguments. It's beyond my ability to dig farther than that. Assuming it's not on a task list somewhere, could someone take a look at it?
pauli133 (
talk)
16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add
{{#if:{{{sister|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color{{COLON}} {{{colour}}} }}" {{!}} [[Sister group|Sister]]{{{sister_ref|}}} {{!}}- {{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: left" {{!}} {{{sister}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{extant_sister|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color{{COLON}} {{{colour}}} }}" {{!}} [[Extant taxon|Extant]] [[Sister group|sister]]{{{extant_sister_ref|}}} {{!}}- {{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: left" {{!}} {{{extant_sister}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{extinct_sister|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color{{COLON}} {{{colour}}} }}" {{!}} [[Extinct]] [[Sister group|sister]]{{{extinct_sister_ref|}}} {{!}}- {{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: left" {{!}} {{{extinct_sister}}} {{!}}- }}
before the synonyms item to Taxobox/core template and
| sister = {{{sister|}}} | extant_sister = {{{extant_sister|}}} | extinct_sister = {{{extinct_sister|}}}
in the Taxobox template. This SHOULD be the same as in the sandboxes, but I can't be fully sure.
This enables the specification of sisters in the taxoboxes, as done now provisionally as an example for the Zygnematales page (using the sandbox versions). The reason why this is important that the definition of a taxon is usually done by also defining which taxa are NOT in the group. I am also requesting to specify the closest extant and closest extinct sister separately, as they can be different. Jmv2009 ( talk) 11:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See request above. Tried to reach consensus, but no response received. I just improved formatting. There is no expected breakage, just an additional feature (modeled after "synonyms") Jmv2009 ( talk) 17:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
chi (
talk)
09:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(Edited) {Taxobox/core} (for which this is the talk page) currently "shouts" {COLON} instead of {colon}. [Template:COLON] is just a redirect to [Template:Colon]. So "Templates used in this preview" of every calling page lists both [Template:COLON] and [Template:Colon]. I caught up the sandbox and then did {COLON} → {colon} (16 places) and some other cleanup (updated links) there. -- A876 ( talk) 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
:
, so simply replace {{
COLON}}
by the entity. I'll double check first in view of the very large number of transclusions.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
22:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
;}}
, <nowiki>;</nowiki>
or ;
, but {{
Colon}}
can be replaced by :
, I think).
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC){{colon}}
with :
or even :
(and other marks too) in {Taxobox/core} – but only if doesn't implode the universe. The Ancients used multiple {{!}}
, {{;}}
, and {{colon}}
there (instead of !
, ;
, and :
), but they didn't tell us whether they did it for readability (among all the { {{ {{{³³
), or whether it is mandatory for correct functioning. I know {COLON}
→ {colon}
at least "can't break it".{{
!}}
and {{
;}}
or HTML entities are needed because in the context in which they occur |
and ;
are interpreted incorrectly during template expansion, whereas in my tests :
is ok. Propagating a purely cosmetic edit to the cached expansions of 390,000+ dependent pages isn't a good idea.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
21:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC):
works better than {colon}
in almost every way, so I updated the .../sandbox version.{{!}}
. It
no longer invokes a template; it is a "magic word" that the parser directly replaces with |
. So "Templates used in this preview" never lists "
Template:!". Changing to |
would give zero benefit; worse, it would reduce clarity.{{;}}
. Changing to ;
would have a tiny benefit, but at the expense of reduced clarity. (And maybe someday they'll make another "magic word" of it.)Hello, I would like to request Taxobox to support subterclass. Previous discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Subterclass. Thanks, -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
|display_parents=
with some appropriate number as the value. The manual taxobox that was in the previous version of the article is an abomination; it completely distorts the proper layout of a taxobox and shows a ridiculous number of minor ranks. Taxoboxes aren't supposed to show the entire taxonomy, just enough to locate the taxon and navigate to the next level above.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
19:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Peter, when I was talking about people who know nothing about taxonomy of gastropods, I was talking also about you. Your edits are not useful and it is very stressful to see them. For example there is a consensus on Wikiproject gastropods to use and view ALL ranks between superfamily and class. Yes, you can call it abomination, but it is the only thing you can do, because you should respect the consensus. Peter, you know this for very long time Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_5#Is_Super_family_a_major_rank?. So I officially call to User:Peter coxhead to STOP distructing articles about gastropods. Thank you, -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
|parent=
parameter in taxonomy templates specifies the hierarchy. The manual taxobox system cannot because any new rank parameter must be put in exactly the right place. If we don't know the exact place for a rank, we can't add it. It's as simple as that.|display_parents=
with the appropriate number.|unranked_subclassis=
, |unranked_infraclassis=
, |unranked_magnordo=
, |unranked_superordo=
, |unranked_ordo=
, |unranked_subordo=
, |unranked_infraordo=
, |unranked_parvordo=
, |unranked_zoosectio=
, |unranked_zoosubsectio=
, and |unranked_superfamilia=
. That's 11 unranked "ranks" between class and superfamily, which is more than enough to support Bouchet 2005's system without shoving all of Bouchet's clades into a single line.
Plantdrew (
talk)
02:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)|display_parents=
parameter yourself, as I suggested, instead of complaining about me?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)| infraclassis = something | subterclassis = something | superordo = something
@ Jts1882 and Plantdrew: equating "cohort" and "subterclass" seems problematic to me, because between the cohort group of ranks and the class group of ranks there can be legion group ranks and (zoological) division group ranks, at least in some areas of the tree of life. I would like to assign "subterclass" a number as per the table at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank, because this enables the automated taxobox system to check for a bad rank hierarchy being created (which does happen regularly). So long as the legion and division group ranks aren't used in conjunction with subterclass, using 1395 will place it just above cohort. Parvclass could be given the same number, provided both aren't used in the same hierarchy. Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As will be clear from earlier discussions, I am deeply reluctant to keep adding yet more rank parameters to {{
Taxobox/core}} and the manual taxobox templates that drive it. In my view, it's already over-complex, making both use and maintenance difficult. My understanding is that it was designed when it was assumed that taxoboxes would almost always display only the principal Linnaean ranks, but has grown piecemeal to the state it is in now. I think that deep taxonomic hierarchies are handled much better by the
autotaxobox system. However, I will of course abide by the consensus, and any editor with template editing powers can add |subterclass=
. What is wrong with using an automated taxobox or using the existing unranked parameters if a manual taxobox is deemed essential for some reason?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
15:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What is wrong with using an automated taxobox?Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
|refs=
is completed in the taxonomy templates. I regularly have to fix broken taxonomy templates, and having a reference to check what should be there is really helpful.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
17:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
|refs=
, because you don't see the child refs if you happen to be editing in the middle of the classification hierarchy, so "ibid" isn't helpful. Also if something changes lower down, the refs there may no longer be relevant higher up. (I have to confess that I too don't always follow my own advice!)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
18:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
|ref=
parameter. To adjust the parent's reference, you need to go to {{
Taxonomy/Gastropoda}}. --
Nessie (
talk)
20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The classification status only works with automatic taxobox. This is because it is nested in the edit link if statement, so doesn't work with taxobox.
Existing code:
{{#if:{{{edit link|}}}|{{edit taxonomy|{{{parent|}}} | {{{edit link}}} }}{{#if: {{{classification_status|}}} | <br/>({{{classification_status}}}) | }} }}
Suggested change:
{{#if:{{{edit link|}}}|{{edit taxonomy|{{{parent|}}} | {{{edit link}}} }} }}{{#if: {{{classification_status|}}} | <br/>({{{classification_status}}}) | }}
Jts1882 | talk 07:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
<small>
tag.
Jts1882 |
talk
07:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In section "Classification status" (first mention of parameter "classification_status"), it refers by wikilink to Veratalpa as an example of disputed classification status in a taxobox. The taxobox for that article does not contain the parameter.
Could someone perhaps replace this with an article with a taxobox that contains the classification_status parameter? Is it possible to search for all articles with this parameter where classification_status=disputed? That would, possibly, remove the need to revise this doc in the future.
Thanks, Prime Lemur ( talk) 02:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Just an idea, and maybe it's already a thing and I just didn't find it. I was wondering if we could have a tracking category for taxoboxes that use the |classification_status=
parameter. I think it would help keep track of articles that may have barriers to converting to automated taxoboxes, but I can see it being useful for articles with autoboxes as well. The variable used for the parameter should not matter, as they all basically mean there is some sort of problem or dispute with the classification of the taxon. I'm thinking this would not be too hard to implement, but I'm barely a script kiddie so what do I know. Currently there are
about 23 articles using the parameter, but I see the number growing as editors work on upgrading taxoboxes, especially those at the bottom of the barrel. What do ya'll think? --
Nessie (
talk)
15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
classification_status = args['{classification_status'] or args['{classification status'] or '',
How do I list a plant's basionym? Please ping responses. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The instruction not to use higher ranks than orders for viruses should be changed as the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses now uses higher ranks. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 11:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why there is only provision for one common name. Including them in the Taxobox would make it easier to find them for users, but also easier to incorporate in structured data like wikidata. -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
|name=
is the name for the taxobox caption if the default based on other parameters is unsuitable. It can be the common name or scientific name, but has to be a unique value. Listing common names (say as with synonyms) would be a new feature. —
Jts1882 |
talk
20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There's possibly a template issue there. Either in the taxobox itself, or in the article. I'm not a botanist, so I'll leave it to others to fix. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
In August 2020, the Queensland Government introduced new wildlife classes under the CAM (Common Assessment Method) to improve the alignment between Queensland and IUCN wildlife classes and criteria so that the list of threatened species for Queensland is similar to that under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. [1] This template (or perhaps some other template?) needs to be edited to reflect that fact. Gderrin ( talk) 22:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm always very reluctant to change this vital template, but I found an error that has been there since 2011, although the parameter that would have revealed it (|type_oogenus=
) doesn't seem to be used. I can't see that the correction can cause any problems, but I'm noting it here just in case.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
08:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/species has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In each section of {{#if:{{{extinct|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{extinct}}}|yes||{{#ifeq:{{{extinct}}}|true|| ({{{extinct}}})}}}}}}, please add the letter y as an excluded string. Animal lover 666 ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Animal lover 666 ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to note that |extinct=
in {{
Speciesbox}} has two functions:
extinct
is not absent, blank, "yes", "true", or (now) "y", it puts the value of extinct
in parentheses after the word "Extinct" (e.g. "c. 1875" at
Broad-faced potoroo).This means that in neither case does a plausible but incorrect use, like |extinct=no
, behave as might be expected. Perhaps it should.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
yesno|{{{extinct|}}}|yes=|def= ({{{extinct}}})}}
extinct
case-insensitive forms of absent, whitespace-blank, Yes
, y
, true
, on
, 1
, No
, n
, false
, off
, 0
and ¬
all to empty string but anything else would yield ({{{extinct}}})
. I choose not to because that was well beyond the request and I was not sure that sort of behavior was expected.{{
Taxonomy/}}
templates in the
WP:TX system also have an extinct
field with similar usage (i.e., the †
dagger, etc). A significant portion of that system is handled by
Module:Autotaxobox (which {{
Speciesbox}} uses) where extinct
values are handled as absent or whitespace-blank, no
and false
imply "no" and yes
and true
imply "yes". This makes me wonder if it should be converted to use
Module:Yesno or the above request should have been denied (based on the fact that "y" should not be handled such). —
Uzume (
talk)
15:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
|extinct=
:
|extinct=
must be set. Its use is explained
here. Any nonblank value, including a date or free form text, means "extinct".extinct
can be used to contain information about the extinction, usually in the form of a date, which is then displayed in the taxobox. Values of "yes", "y" and "true" suppress the display.|extinct=
to display the extinction symbol and a new parameter (|extinction_date=
?) to display dates? I'll populate a new parameter if it is created; looks like there are only ~200 instances of dates in |extinct=
across all taxobox templates.
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
start date and age}}
does). For example, it would be cool if the Infobox on
Tyrannosaurus could somewhere render something like "extinct for 68–66 Ma" based on the value at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus (or higher up in the taxonomy like
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauroidea) —
Uzume (
talk)
18:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with
Plantdrew that the extinction date should be removed from the taxobox; a referenced status of EX is enough there. The details should be put in the text. This can easily be implemented by changing {{
Taxobox/species}} so that it doesn't handle |extinct=
. Then, later, taxoboxes that have |extinct=
with values other than "yes" or "true" can be fixed. This is the approach I favour.
What do others think of this proposal? Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
To clarify {{
Taxobox/species}}, I'm in the process of changing the name of its parameter extinct
to extinction_date
. This will entail changing {{
Taxobox/core}} to use {{
Taxobox/species}} with the new parameter name. I won't make any more changes unless and until there is a wider discussion, so the change will only affect the internal working of taxoboxes and no article taxoboxes will be affected.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
18:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does the taxoboxes have limited data? For example, they do not include mass, life span, the type of diet, lengths, gestation period, and so on. -- NGC 54 ( talk | contribs) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this template and related templates use a data table for layout, which could confuse screen reader users (
MOS:LTAB), and inline style attributes for background-color, requiring coordination across multiple lines of multiple templates. I'm trying for a templatestyles implementation, with an accessible complementary region, where the output looks like <div role="complementary" aria-label="Taxonomy" class="infobox taxobox taxobox-animalia biota"> ... <div class="taxobox-header">
, instead of <table class="infobox taxobox biota"> ... <th colspan=2 style="text-align:... background-color:...">
. Relevant new pages created at
Template:Taxobox/styles.css and
Template:Taxobox/palette (forked from
Template:Taxobox colour), and edits to
Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox (
diff and
testcases). Not ready to go live, though. Still more wrinkles to iron out (e.g. width on mobile), and maybe some other editors can flag some problems too?
Matt Fitzpatrick (
talk)
00:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|colour=
to {{
Taxobox/core}}. I strongly advise you not to change any of the parameters to {{
Taxobox/core}}, since this will require all the user-facing taxobox templates to be changed.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
07:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|palette=
contains a CSS class setting the colour for the headings, one for each group set by {{
taxobox/palette}} as defined in {{
taxobox colour}}. That class is then added to the table declaration to set the colour for all section headings. The parameter |palette=
is passed by {{
taxobox}} instead of |colour=
, which is no longer required to set the background colour style for each heading (now handled by the class). Other taxoboxes that pass |colour=
will still set the colour with a style element on each heading. This appears to work in principle, but as you say below will need to be checked on all the taxobox entry templates. —
Jts1882 |
talk
09:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|palette=
to set the colour, while all the other (automated) taxobox templates still use |colour=
. The logical approach is to make no changes to {{
Taxobox}} or any of the 10 or so other taxobox templates, leaving the parameter as colour
, and only change the way that {{
Taxobox/core}} implements the required colour. Having different taxoboxes using different methods will be a maintenance headache.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
09:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)<nowiki/>
tag. If I remember correctly, placing templatestyles
immediately before the table does the same thing, but this needs checking.taxobox-heading
class? Why not just apply the colour classes to header rows.div
element around the taxobox table necessary? Why not apply the attributes role="complementary"
and aria-label="Taxonomy"
to the table, as done for role="presentation"
? This might also interplay with
T18700.min-width:15em;
and is replaced by width: 220px;
. Does this change the behaviour of the taxobox?88%
instead of 85%
(which is also the size set by the {{
small}} template)?The code of the template uses an explicit value of |regnum=
to choose a wikilink for the subheading "Trinomial name" when this appears. However, when an automated taxobox is used, e.g. {{
Subspeciesbox}} or {{
Infraspeciesbox}}, no such parameter is passed because the classification hierarchy is created by the automated taxobox system. The default when there was no value of |regnum=
was previously to wikilink to
Trinomen, which was changed on 26 May 2022 to redirect to
Trinomial nomenclature#In zoology. This was wrong when the organism wasn't an animal, so I've changed it to just
Trinomial nomenclature which works for both animals and plants. Revert if this has any side-effects I haven't foreseen.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/species has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Within the line | ex = [[file:Status iucn2.3 EX.svg|frameless|link=|alt=]]<br />[[Extinction|Extinct]] {{#switch:{{{extinction_date|}}}|y|yes|true|=| ({{{extinction_date}}})}} {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} | {{ns: 0}} | [[Category:IUCN Red List extinct species]] | }}
, could the space between the switch statement and the [[Extinction|Extinct]]
bit be removed? That space essentially nullifies the nbsp in the switch statement result and it causes a double space to occur, which looks confusing (As seen in
White swamphen). Thanks.
Aidan9382 (
talk)
06:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox,
Template:Taxobox/core,
Template:Speciesbox,
Template:Subspeciesbox and
Module:Automated taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
| type_strain = {{{type_strain|{{{type strain|}}}}}}
to
| type_strain = {{{type_strain|{{{type strain|}}}}}} | type_strain_ref = {{{type_strain_ref|{{{type_strain_ref|}}}}}}
To name a new bacterial species, the type strain must be deposited in at least two culture collections on different continents. Each culture collection gives the type strain a unique designation. So a type strain usually has multiple strain names. For example, the type strain of E. coli is called ATCC 11775 by the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), DSM 30083 by the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ), JCM 1649 by the Japan Collection of Microorganisms (JCM), and LMG 2092 by the Belgian Coordinated Collections of Microorganisms (BCCM). Lists of type strains can be found at resources like
LPSN and
BacDive. Adding a type_strain_ref
field to the taxobox would simplify adding references. This change should also be made to the {{
Speciesbox}} and {{
Subspeciesbox}} templates.
Also, if possible, please change the type_strain
field so that it is NOT centered. This will make it possible to use bulleted lists for the type strains.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
01:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
|type_strain_ref=
right now (changing
Template:Taxobox/core needs care as it has such a high use, and the templates that drive it that could use this parameter would also need changing). Maybe
Jts1882 might look at it sooner.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Taxobox examples
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
type_strain_ref
parameter. As for the other request, now that I can see the list of type strain designations with or without bullet points, I find that I prefer to keep it the way it is (centered). So I withdraw the request for changing the type_strain
parameters.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
03:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)type_strain_ref
parameter. The way you implemented it in the sandbox looks great.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
07:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
type_strain_ref
parameter:
Lawsonella clevelandensis.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
17:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Ninjatacoshell: at present Type strain redirects to Type (biology), but this says nothing at all about type strains, or the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes which replaces the Bacteriological Code, so the link in the taxobox is not really helpful to readers. Since you seem to know about this subject, could you add something to International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes? Then the redirect can be revised. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Peter coxhead and
Jts1882:, I've replaced all instances of spaced parameters (e.g. |image caption=
) with underscored parameters (e.g. |image_caption=
. I think support for spaced parameters should now be disabled and
Module:Check for unknown parameters be added to Taxobox so any future instances of spaced parameters show up in an error tracking category. I'm posting here because some articles with Taxobox still had spaced parameters until today. Articles with the automatic taxobox templates haven't really had any instances of spaced parameters for several years now (although there is a trickle of a couple new instances a month), but as far as I'm aware, spaced parameters are still supported in automatic taxoboxes and don't show up in an error tracking category.
Plantdrew (
talk)
01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I note that very few species have images in their taxoboxes.
We've had great success with adding geographical coordinates to articles, helped by an extensive system of tracking categories for articles without coordinate and a small army of dedicated geocoders, to the point where we have reached a tipping point to where contributors of new articles about geolocatable entities now add coordinates by default.
There is an opportunity to something very similar here for species images, using Template:Taxobox/core. I propose to modify it to detect if images are completely missing (that is to say none of image, image2, image_upright, image2_upright), and to add a category "$ORDER taxobox without images", where $ORDER is taken from the taxonomic hierarchy.
Obviously the main problem is the lack of suitably licensed and labelled images, but if we had these tracking categories, they might be a useful motivator to people to add images where available, or (even better) for curators of suitable images to release them under a license that would allow them to be mass-contributed to the encylopedia (and Commons) using bot edits. — The Anome ( talk) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
...and speaking of which, I've just noticed that the National History Museum are currently digitising their specimen collection under CC-BY-4.0! See here for just one example. And it looks like other organizations are doing the same, and some have been uploaded to Commons already, see here and also here. — The Anome ( talk) 12:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
|needs image=
, which is used to track articles missing images (but it's not necessarily set correctly; many articles that don't have images don't have a |needs image=
, and there are some articles where an image has been added, but the WikiProject banner on the talk page hasn't been updated (there is
a tool to check for articles that have images but are flagged as neeeding images). TemplateData can also be used to find articles missing images; if a parameter is flagged as required in TemplateData, the TemplateData error report can show all articles that don't have a value for that parameter).@
The Anome: there's a Lua function in
Module:Autotaxobox which will find the order for a genus, if it exists in the taxonomic hierarchy. Thus
However, I'm doubtful of the value of categories for taxa without images by order. Thus for spiders, PetScan found 4,462 stub articles with no images. Some of the higher taxa may possibly have lower ranked members with images in Commons, but most of the species will not. For groups like spiders, there just aren't useful accurately identified copyright free images available. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps there should just be be a single hidden tracking category for "Taxoboxes without images" to help bot operators find these articles (perhaps with an auxliary category "Taxoboxes without images with images on Commons"), and leave it at that? Or is even that too much of an invitation for misguided enthusiasts? It would be a pity to be forced to resort to using title matching and article source scraping to find these. — The Anome ( talk) 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
hastemplate:Taxobox/core -insource:/\| *image *\=/
(i.e. has a taxobox but appears not to have an image parameter) gives about 111,000 results. I think the existing categories by Wikiproject, like
Category:Wikipedia requested images of spiders, are sufficient.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
18:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
|image=
with no value specified. That search only turn up articles that don't contain |image=
at all.
Template Data for Speciesbox shows ~260,000 articles, of which ~105,000 have an image specified. That means are 155,000 articles with Speciesbox that don't have an image. Modifying Peter's search with Speciesbox instead of Taxobox/core gives ~60,000 articles; that means there ~95,000 articles with Speciesbox and |image=
with no value specified. It should be possible to get a list of the ~105,000 Speciesbox articles that don't have an image, but I don't know an efficient way to do it (if |image=
is "required" rather than "suggested" in Template Data, the Template Data report will show articles that are missing the required parameter, but only in batches of 100 results per page).
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
|image=
with only whitespace up to the end of the line, i.e. empty values, but the counts would only show a very large number again.)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but NatureServe conservation templates, such as this one here, should read "Unranked, not "Unrankable". NatureServe has an "unranked" status, they do not have an "unrankable", because that implies ranking to be impossible, which is absurd. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but it is kind of strange. And the example I gave is listed as "Unranked", but when I tried to change it to GNR, I got an "Invalid status" error. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 08:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see WT:Automated taxobox system#Forma specialis taxa for a question about taxoboxes in articles about forma specialis (f.sp.) fungus taxa. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, changing the U.S. Endangered Species Act status parameter does not automatically change the article's category: Category:ESA endangered species, Category:ESA threatened species, etc. (not sure if there are categories for delisted or declared extinct). Could these please be added? 108.18.207.147 ( talk) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
hastemplate:speciesbox insource:/status2*_system *= *ESA/ insource:/status2* *= *L*E/
198 resultshastemplate:speciesbox insource:/status2*_system *= *ESA/ insource:/status2* *= *L*T/
53 results
Pygmy hog | |
---|---|
Critically Depleted (IUCN Green)
[2]
| |
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Class: | Mammalia |
Order: | Artiodactyla |
Family: | Suidae |
Genus: |
Porcula Hodgson, 1847 |
Species: | P. salvania
[1]
|
Binomial name | |
Porcula salvania
[1]
Hodgson, 1847
|
The IUCN now includes a Green Status on some of their listings. Maybe only the Endangered ones? I don't know. Anyway, I saw it at IUCN's pygmy hog listing. We may want to incorporate this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
|status2_system=IUCN Green
and |status2=Critically Depleted
(see taxobox to right). If someone created a set of graphics it could be handled as a recognised system. —
Jts1882 |
talk
12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)References
Is there a way the rank "infraregnum" could be added? It is necessary to showcase some disputed taxa like the Apusozoa (infrakingdom Diacentrida, subkingdom Sarcomastigota, kingdom Protozoa). Thanks in advance. —Snoteleks 🦠 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Taxobox/Archive 31 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Clade: | Diaphoretickes |
Subkingdom: | SAR |
Infrakingdom: | Halvaria |
|auto=
). I'm surprised that auto wasn't the default as it probably should be. I've updated the module to allow infraregnum with the manual taxonomy parameters (although this won't work with the {{
taxobox}} template). —
Jts1882 |
talk
17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Apusozoa (obsolete paraphyletic group)
| |
---|---|
![]() | |
Apusomonas sp. | |
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Clade: | Obazoa |
Phylum: |
Apusozoa Cavalier-Smith 1997 emend. 2013 |
Groups included | |
Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa | |
|auto=yes
or |auto=virus
. I think {{
paraphyletic group}} should be changed to use |auto=yes
by default and require |auto=no
to use the manual taxon parameters if absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary and think it would be better to use an automated taxobox. This makes it easier to review the taxonomies used on Wikipedia.|auto=yes
to the existing taxobox gives a suitable taxobox. I've added it here (see right) with a few tweaks. —
Jts1882 |
talk
16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
In the article stub about Cytherellidae the taxobox says it belongs to the order Platycopida, which is correct. And the taxobox in the article stub about Punciidae says that too belongs to the order Platycopida, which is wrong. It belongs to the order Palaeocopida. But when I change the info in the taxobox to correct it, the taxobox describing Cytherellidae changes too, from Platycopida to Palaeocopida. And vice versa. The two taxoboxes are connected, so when you edit it in one of the mentioned articles, the same thing happens in the other. Is there a way to separate them? Hipporoo ( talk) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There are many parameters listed as "deprecated" under Template:Taxobox#Template parameters, but they appear in the template code and in the documentation, albeit with heavily caveated use cases. They are:
|image_width=
|image_caption_align=
|range_map_width=
|alliance=
|variety=
|color_as=
plus their numerical counterparts, |image2_width=
, etc.
It would be more accurate to change these to "discouraged", since the only parameter that's actually deprecated, from what I can tell, is |image_size=
, since it has been removed from the immediate (i.e. non-nested) template code and from the documentation.
Related question: should all empty discouraged parameters be removed? I've been removing empty |image_width=
(only)
since at least 2020. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
14:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
|color_as=
is an instance of "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases". I suppose |image_caption_align=
may be as well, but I have never come across it being used in my time on Wikipedia.|varietas=
should be used instead of |variety=
Most of the parameter names for ranks are Latin not English (regnum/classis/ordo/familia, not kingdom/class/order/family with phylum/genus/species being the same in Latin and English).|alliance=
is also English, but isn't used anywhere. I'm pretty sure I set it to "deprecated" as work-around when trying to find articles that used it and update them to recent classifications that didn't use that rank (the
TemplateData Error Report will show articles using a particular parameter/value when a template has few transclusions. When a template has many transclusions (over 50k, I think) the option to see which articles use a particular parameter is disabled unless that parameter is marked as deprecated).|color=
meets your stricter definition of deprecated; it's been removed from the template code, and I just removed it from the documentation. It should definitely be removed when empty. It could be removed when non-empty, as it does not do anything. I have been slowly working through the articles with "color = lightgrey" (the only value specified now) and converting them to automatic taxoboxes. I wouldn't mind at all if you got rid of all non-empty instance |color=
now, but it is something I intend to eventually achieve myself if nobody else does it. "image_width=220px" is another bugbear of mine (220 is already the default), that I'm inclined to address with automatic taxoboxes, but wouldn't mind of you went ahead and got rid of it while leaving manual taxoboxes in place.
Plantdrew (
talk)
02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)|color_as=
, that are needed only in exceptional cases, so are "deprecated", but need to be supported indefinitely.image_width
parameters are a different matter. I would like to remove them altogether. However, right now
this tool reports 3,136 uses of |image_width=
(plus some for other image width parameters), which ideally would be checked first. On the other hand, these parameters don't exist in the automated taxobox templates, like {{
Speciesbox}}
and {{
Automatic taxobox}}
, so perhaps just removing them from the manual taxobox template would be ok.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
|image_width=
from the code. None of the instances of 100px actually have an image. The remaining values range from 200px to 250px which isn't really a big enough difference from the default 220px to "fix" images with extreme aspect ratios. 234px/235px is used in fungus articles with {{
Mycomorphbox}} to make the taxobox display at the same width as the mycomorphbox. If different widths in taxobox and mycomorphbox is even a problem in the first place, a better solution for that would be to make mycomorphboxes display at the same width as a taxobox with a 220px image.
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|image_width=
first, to avoid all the pages showing up in the taxobox error-tracking categories.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:05, 5 December 2023 (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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
I think our current system of coloring taxoboxes is overly complicated and should be simplified. We have four different yellows, three different greens, and three different blues, for example. If I see that a taxobox is yellow, am I realistically going to remember which shade of yellow means what and actually be able to recognize that shade of yellow and say "Ah, this mush be an Opisthokonta?" No, not in a million years. Color-coding infoboxes in only useful when there is a clear intensity scale, like for Infobox hurricane, or they are limited to 3 or 4 colors that folks can actually recognize and easily distinguish. Otherwise, it serves no purpose for the reader. I would like to propose that we simplify on the following scheme:
I don't really care about the specific colors. Mostly I just want to simplify it. Thoughts? Kaldari ( talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Animalia | rgb(235,235,210) | |
---|---|---|
Archaea | rgb(195,245,250) | also Nanoarchaeota (Nanarchaeota), Korarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota |
Archaeplastida | rgb(180,250,180) | also Plantae and Viridiplantae |
Bacteria | rgb(220,235,245) | |
Eukaryota | rgb(245,215,255) | For eukaryotes with no other colour defined, including Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta |
Fungi | rgb(145,250,250) | |
Ichnotaxa | rgb(230,222,214) | |
incertae sedis | rgb(250,240,230) | |
SAR | rgb(200,250,80) | also Harosa, Chromalveolata |
Ootaxa | rgb(250,250,220) | |
Viruses | rgb(250,250,190) | also Viroids |
How about something like this:
Viruses | |
---|---|
Bacteria | |
Archaea, etc. | |
Animalia | |
Fungi | |
Archaeplastida, etc. | |
other | |
Colours not produced by this template: | |
Ichnotaxa | |
Ootaxa |
@ Peter coxhead: ^ Would that be a good compromise? Kaldari ( talk) 07:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
In order to simplify the color schemes used by this template, it is proposed that Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta be rolled up into Eukaryota. This will affect approximately 300 articles. The new color scheme will be:
Viruses | rgb(250,250,190) | also Viroids |
---|---|---|
Bacteria | rgb(220,235,245) | |
Archaea | rgb(195,245,250) | also Nanoarchaeota (Nanarchaeota), Korarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota |
Eukaryota | rgb(245,215,255) | For eukaryotes with no other colour defined, including Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta |
Animalia | rgb(235,235,210) | |
Fungi | rgb(145,250,250) | |
Archaeplastida | rgb(180,250,180) | also Plantae and Viridiplantae |
SAR | rgb(200,250,80) | also Chromalveolata |
incertae sedis | rgb(250,240,230) | |
Colours not produced by this template: | ||
Ichnotaxa | rgb(215,240,210) | |
Ootaxa | rgb(250,250,220) |
If you have an opinion on this, state it below. Kaldari ( talk) 05:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I updated the sandbox templates. The results can be seen at Template:Taxobox/testcases. (The only noticeable difference is for Fonticula, the last example.) Kaldari ( talk) 18:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed varying degrees of in/consistency of having or excluding a leading &
nbsp;
for the 3 |*_ref=
parameters. Do we want to:
|*_ref=
, orThe current documentation suggests #2.
If #1 is desired, I can rig the template so it forces 1 nbsp, without duplicating an existing one.
Since I'm going through all the {{ IUCN}} transclusions, I'd like to know which format to standardize to. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initially asked here.) I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search. Thanks in advance, RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statuses for New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) needs updating, as there are now different Categories. Perhaps it needs a version the way that IUCN does, to not leave old pages in the lurch? Or perhaps that just means they need updating as well. Nessie ( talk) 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Refer to Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions for background, and Template talk:Disambiguation and Template talk:Infobox settlement for some background on possible ways forward.
Since the RfC on short descriptions from WikiData was closed with consensus to provide local Wikipedia short descriptions, eventually for all articles, there have been several applications of template driven short descriptions for similar groups of articles. Notably places are served by a default short description produced by Template:Infobox settlement, which, while not perfect, does do a reasonable job most of the time of disambiguating place articles with an infobox. Local short descriptions can be provided to override the default short description where this will work better, and where an editor is willing to do the additional work.
There are a large number of articles on taxonomic groups, and the taxobox could be an efficient way of adding short descriptions to a large number of articles very quickly and efficiently, in a way that will automatically update as the taxonomy is revised.
I open this suggestion for discussion as to how the data already available in taxoboxes can be combined to create useful short descriptions at various levels.
In the case of a species (or genus), for example a useful short description for Jasus lalandii might be: "Species of spiny lobster in the family Palinuridae", where species and Palinuridae are directly available from the taxobox, but the common name for Palinuridae, ie "spiny lobster" is more difficult to reach.
Families might be given as members of an order, as for Palinuridae: "A family of marine crustaceans in the order Decapoda". Here again, family and Decapoda are easy to extract. Crustaceans not so easy, though Crustacea is simple enough. Marine may be difficult.
At this stage this is brainstorming to see if it is reasonably practicable to automate most of the taxa. Doing it all manually is the default option, but not a very attractive one. Cneers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Something in Taxobox (also speciesbox, etc) is generating lint errors claiming misnested <small>
tags in, well, tons of things. I THINK it's stemming from whatever code formats the various authority
arguments. It's beyond my ability to dig farther than that. Assuming it's not on a task list somewhere, could someone take a look at it?
pauli133 (
talk)
16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add
{{#if:{{{sister|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color{{COLON}} {{{colour}}} }}" {{!}} [[Sister group|Sister]]{{{sister_ref|}}} {{!}}- {{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: left" {{!}} {{{sister}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{extant_sister|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color{{COLON}} {{{colour}}} }}" {{!}} [[Extant taxon|Extant]] [[Sister group|sister]]{{{extant_sister_ref|}}} {{!}}- {{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: left" {{!}} {{{extant_sister}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{extinct_sister|}}}| ! colspan=2 style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color{{COLON}} {{{colour}}} }}" {{!}} [[Extinct]] [[Sister group|sister]]{{{extinct_sister_ref|}}} {{!}}- {{!}} colspan=2 style="text-align: left" {{!}} {{{extinct_sister}}} {{!}}- }}
before the synonyms item to Taxobox/core template and
| sister = {{{sister|}}} | extant_sister = {{{extant_sister|}}} | extinct_sister = {{{extinct_sister|}}}
in the Taxobox template. This SHOULD be the same as in the sandboxes, but I can't be fully sure.
This enables the specification of sisters in the taxoboxes, as done now provisionally as an example for the Zygnematales page (using the sandbox versions). The reason why this is important that the definition of a taxon is usually done by also defining which taxa are NOT in the group. I am also requesting to specify the closest extant and closest extinct sister separately, as they can be different. Jmv2009 ( talk) 11:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See request above. Tried to reach consensus, but no response received. I just improved formatting. There is no expected breakage, just an additional feature (modeled after "synonyms") Jmv2009 ( talk) 17:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
chi (
talk)
09:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(Edited) {Taxobox/core} (for which this is the talk page) currently "shouts" {COLON} instead of {colon}. [Template:COLON] is just a redirect to [Template:Colon]. So "Templates used in this preview" of every calling page lists both [Template:COLON] and [Template:Colon]. I caught up the sandbox and then did {COLON} → {colon} (16 places) and some other cleanup (updated links) there. -- A876 ( talk) 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
:
, so simply replace {{
COLON}}
by the entity. I'll double check first in view of the very large number of transclusions.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
22:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
;}}
, <nowiki>;</nowiki>
or ;
, but {{
Colon}}
can be replaced by :
, I think).
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC){{colon}}
with :
or even :
(and other marks too) in {Taxobox/core} – but only if doesn't implode the universe. The Ancients used multiple {{!}}
, {{;}}
, and {{colon}}
there (instead of !
, ;
, and :
), but they didn't tell us whether they did it for readability (among all the { {{ {{{³³
), or whether it is mandatory for correct functioning. I know {COLON}
→ {colon}
at least "can't break it".{{
!}}
and {{
;}}
or HTML entities are needed because in the context in which they occur |
and ;
are interpreted incorrectly during template expansion, whereas in my tests :
is ok. Propagating a purely cosmetic edit to the cached expansions of 390,000+ dependent pages isn't a good idea.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
21:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC):
works better than {colon}
in almost every way, so I updated the .../sandbox version.{{!}}
. It
no longer invokes a template; it is a "magic word" that the parser directly replaces with |
. So "Templates used in this preview" never lists "
Template:!". Changing to |
would give zero benefit; worse, it would reduce clarity.{{;}}
. Changing to ;
would have a tiny benefit, but at the expense of reduced clarity. (And maybe someday they'll make another "magic word" of it.)Hello, I would like to request Taxobox to support subterclass. Previous discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Subterclass. Thanks, -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
|display_parents=
with some appropriate number as the value. The manual taxobox that was in the previous version of the article is an abomination; it completely distorts the proper layout of a taxobox and shows a ridiculous number of minor ranks. Taxoboxes aren't supposed to show the entire taxonomy, just enough to locate the taxon and navigate to the next level above.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
19:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Peter, when I was talking about people who know nothing about taxonomy of gastropods, I was talking also about you. Your edits are not useful and it is very stressful to see them. For example there is a consensus on Wikiproject gastropods to use and view ALL ranks between superfamily and class. Yes, you can call it abomination, but it is the only thing you can do, because you should respect the consensus. Peter, you know this for very long time Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_5#Is_Super_family_a_major_rank?. So I officially call to User:Peter coxhead to STOP distructing articles about gastropods. Thank you, -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
|parent=
parameter in taxonomy templates specifies the hierarchy. The manual taxobox system cannot because any new rank parameter must be put in exactly the right place. If we don't know the exact place for a rank, we can't add it. It's as simple as that.|display_parents=
with the appropriate number.|unranked_subclassis=
, |unranked_infraclassis=
, |unranked_magnordo=
, |unranked_superordo=
, |unranked_ordo=
, |unranked_subordo=
, |unranked_infraordo=
, |unranked_parvordo=
, |unranked_zoosectio=
, |unranked_zoosubsectio=
, and |unranked_superfamilia=
. That's 11 unranked "ranks" between class and superfamily, which is more than enough to support Bouchet 2005's system without shoving all of Bouchet's clades into a single line.
Plantdrew (
talk)
02:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)|display_parents=
parameter yourself, as I suggested, instead of complaining about me?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)| infraclassis = something | subterclassis = something | superordo = something
@ Jts1882 and Plantdrew: equating "cohort" and "subterclass" seems problematic to me, because between the cohort group of ranks and the class group of ranks there can be legion group ranks and (zoological) division group ranks, at least in some areas of the tree of life. I would like to assign "subterclass" a number as per the table at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank, because this enables the automated taxobox system to check for a bad rank hierarchy being created (which does happen regularly). So long as the legion and division group ranks aren't used in conjunction with subterclass, using 1395 will place it just above cohort. Parvclass could be given the same number, provided both aren't used in the same hierarchy. Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As will be clear from earlier discussions, I am deeply reluctant to keep adding yet more rank parameters to {{
Taxobox/core}} and the manual taxobox templates that drive it. In my view, it's already over-complex, making both use and maintenance difficult. My understanding is that it was designed when it was assumed that taxoboxes would almost always display only the principal Linnaean ranks, but has grown piecemeal to the state it is in now. I think that deep taxonomic hierarchies are handled much better by the
autotaxobox system. However, I will of course abide by the consensus, and any editor with template editing powers can add |subterclass=
. What is wrong with using an automated taxobox or using the existing unranked parameters if a manual taxobox is deemed essential for some reason?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
15:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What is wrong with using an automated taxobox?Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
|refs=
is completed in the taxonomy templates. I regularly have to fix broken taxonomy templates, and having a reference to check what should be there is really helpful.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
17:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
|refs=
, because you don't see the child refs if you happen to be editing in the middle of the classification hierarchy, so "ibid" isn't helpful. Also if something changes lower down, the refs there may no longer be relevant higher up. (I have to confess that I too don't always follow my own advice!)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
18:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
|ref=
parameter. To adjust the parent's reference, you need to go to {{
Taxonomy/Gastropoda}}. --
Nessie (
talk)
20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The classification status only works with automatic taxobox. This is because it is nested in the edit link if statement, so doesn't work with taxobox.
Existing code:
{{#if:{{{edit link|}}}|{{edit taxonomy|{{{parent|}}} | {{{edit link}}} }}{{#if: {{{classification_status|}}} | <br/>({{{classification_status}}}) | }} }}
Suggested change:
{{#if:{{{edit link|}}}|{{edit taxonomy|{{{parent|}}} | {{{edit link}}} }} }}{{#if: {{{classification_status|}}} | <br/>({{{classification_status}}}) | }}
Jts1882 | talk 07:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
<small>
tag.
Jts1882 |
talk
07:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In section "Classification status" (first mention of parameter "classification_status"), it refers by wikilink to Veratalpa as an example of disputed classification status in a taxobox. The taxobox for that article does not contain the parameter.
Could someone perhaps replace this with an article with a taxobox that contains the classification_status parameter? Is it possible to search for all articles with this parameter where classification_status=disputed? That would, possibly, remove the need to revise this doc in the future.
Thanks, Prime Lemur ( talk) 02:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Just an idea, and maybe it's already a thing and I just didn't find it. I was wondering if we could have a tracking category for taxoboxes that use the |classification_status=
parameter. I think it would help keep track of articles that may have barriers to converting to automated taxoboxes, but I can see it being useful for articles with autoboxes as well. The variable used for the parameter should not matter, as they all basically mean there is some sort of problem or dispute with the classification of the taxon. I'm thinking this would not be too hard to implement, but I'm barely a script kiddie so what do I know. Currently there are
about 23 articles using the parameter, but I see the number growing as editors work on upgrading taxoboxes, especially those at the bottom of the barrel. What do ya'll think? --
Nessie (
talk)
15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
classification_status = args['{classification_status'] or args['{classification status'] or '',
How do I list a plant's basionym? Please ping responses. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The instruction not to use higher ranks than orders for viruses should be changed as the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses now uses higher ranks. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 11:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why there is only provision for one common name. Including them in the Taxobox would make it easier to find them for users, but also easier to incorporate in structured data like wikidata. -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
|name=
is the name for the taxobox caption if the default based on other parameters is unsuitable. It can be the common name or scientific name, but has to be a unique value. Listing common names (say as with synonyms) would be a new feature. —
Jts1882 |
talk
20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There's possibly a template issue there. Either in the taxobox itself, or in the article. I'm not a botanist, so I'll leave it to others to fix. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
In August 2020, the Queensland Government introduced new wildlife classes under the CAM (Common Assessment Method) to improve the alignment between Queensland and IUCN wildlife classes and criteria so that the list of threatened species for Queensland is similar to that under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. [1] This template (or perhaps some other template?) needs to be edited to reflect that fact. Gderrin ( talk) 22:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm always very reluctant to change this vital template, but I found an error that has been there since 2011, although the parameter that would have revealed it (|type_oogenus=
) doesn't seem to be used. I can't see that the correction can cause any problems, but I'm noting it here just in case.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
08:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/species has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In each section of {{#if:{{{extinct|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{extinct}}}|yes||{{#ifeq:{{{extinct}}}|true|| ({{{extinct}}})}}}}}}, please add the letter y as an excluded string. Animal lover 666 ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Animal lover 666 ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to note that |extinct=
in {{
Speciesbox}} has two functions:
extinct
is not absent, blank, "yes", "true", or (now) "y", it puts the value of extinct
in parentheses after the word "Extinct" (e.g. "c. 1875" at
Broad-faced potoroo).This means that in neither case does a plausible but incorrect use, like |extinct=no
, behave as might be expected. Perhaps it should.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
yesno|{{{extinct|}}}|yes=|def= ({{{extinct}}})}}
extinct
case-insensitive forms of absent, whitespace-blank, Yes
, y
, true
, on
, 1
, No
, n
, false
, off
, 0
and ¬
all to empty string but anything else would yield ({{{extinct}}})
. I choose not to because that was well beyond the request and I was not sure that sort of behavior was expected.{{
Taxonomy/}}
templates in the
WP:TX system also have an extinct
field with similar usage (i.e., the †
dagger, etc). A significant portion of that system is handled by
Module:Autotaxobox (which {{
Speciesbox}} uses) where extinct
values are handled as absent or whitespace-blank, no
and false
imply "no" and yes
and true
imply "yes". This makes me wonder if it should be converted to use
Module:Yesno or the above request should have been denied (based on the fact that "y" should not be handled such). —
Uzume (
talk)
15:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
|extinct=
:
|extinct=
must be set. Its use is explained
here. Any nonblank value, including a date or free form text, means "extinct".extinct
can be used to contain information about the extinction, usually in the form of a date, which is then displayed in the taxobox. Values of "yes", "y" and "true" suppress the display.|extinct=
to display the extinction symbol and a new parameter (|extinction_date=
?) to display dates? I'll populate a new parameter if it is created; looks like there are only ~200 instances of dates in |extinct=
across all taxobox templates.
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
start date and age}}
does). For example, it would be cool if the Infobox on
Tyrannosaurus could somewhere render something like "extinct for 68–66 Ma" based on the value at
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosaurus (or higher up in the taxonomy like
Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauroidea) —
Uzume (
talk)
18:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with
Plantdrew that the extinction date should be removed from the taxobox; a referenced status of EX is enough there. The details should be put in the text. This can easily be implemented by changing {{
Taxobox/species}} so that it doesn't handle |extinct=
. Then, later, taxoboxes that have |extinct=
with values other than "yes" or "true" can be fixed. This is the approach I favour.
What do others think of this proposal? Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
To clarify {{
Taxobox/species}}, I'm in the process of changing the name of its parameter extinct
to extinction_date
. This will entail changing {{
Taxobox/core}} to use {{
Taxobox/species}} with the new parameter name. I won't make any more changes unless and until there is a wider discussion, so the change will only affect the internal working of taxoboxes and no article taxoboxes will be affected.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
18:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Why does the taxoboxes have limited data? For example, they do not include mass, life span, the type of diet, lengths, gestation period, and so on. -- NGC 54 ( talk | contribs) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this template and related templates use a data table for layout, which could confuse screen reader users (
MOS:LTAB), and inline style attributes for background-color, requiring coordination across multiple lines of multiple templates. I'm trying for a templatestyles implementation, with an accessible complementary region, where the output looks like <div role="complementary" aria-label="Taxonomy" class="infobox taxobox taxobox-animalia biota"> ... <div class="taxobox-header">
, instead of <table class="infobox taxobox biota"> ... <th colspan=2 style="text-align:... background-color:...">
. Relevant new pages created at
Template:Taxobox/styles.css and
Template:Taxobox/palette (forked from
Template:Taxobox colour), and edits to
Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox (
diff and
testcases). Not ready to go live, though. Still more wrinkles to iron out (e.g. width on mobile), and maybe some other editors can flag some problems too?
Matt Fitzpatrick (
talk)
00:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|colour=
to {{
Taxobox/core}}. I strongly advise you not to change any of the parameters to {{
Taxobox/core}}, since this will require all the user-facing taxobox templates to be changed.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
07:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|palette=
contains a CSS class setting the colour for the headings, one for each group set by {{
taxobox/palette}} as defined in {{
taxobox colour}}. That class is then added to the table declaration to set the colour for all section headings. The parameter |palette=
is passed by {{
taxobox}} instead of |colour=
, which is no longer required to set the background colour style for each heading (now handled by the class). Other taxoboxes that pass |colour=
will still set the colour with a style element on each heading. This appears to work in principle, but as you say below will need to be checked on all the taxobox entry templates. —
Jts1882 |
talk
09:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
|palette=
to set the colour, while all the other (automated) taxobox templates still use |colour=
. The logical approach is to make no changes to {{
Taxobox}} or any of the 10 or so other taxobox templates, leaving the parameter as colour
, and only change the way that {{
Taxobox/core}} implements the required colour. Having different taxoboxes using different methods will be a maintenance headache.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
09:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)<nowiki/>
tag. If I remember correctly, placing templatestyles
immediately before the table does the same thing, but this needs checking.taxobox-heading
class? Why not just apply the colour classes to header rows.div
element around the taxobox table necessary? Why not apply the attributes role="complementary"
and aria-label="Taxonomy"
to the table, as done for role="presentation"
? This might also interplay with
T18700.min-width:15em;
and is replaced by width: 220px;
. Does this change the behaviour of the taxobox?88%
instead of 85%
(which is also the size set by the {{
small}} template)?The code of the template uses an explicit value of |regnum=
to choose a wikilink for the subheading "Trinomial name" when this appears. However, when an automated taxobox is used, e.g. {{
Subspeciesbox}} or {{
Infraspeciesbox}}, no such parameter is passed because the classification hierarchy is created by the automated taxobox system. The default when there was no value of |regnum=
was previously to wikilink to
Trinomen, which was changed on 26 May 2022 to redirect to
Trinomial nomenclature#In zoology. This was wrong when the organism wasn't an animal, so I've changed it to just
Trinomial nomenclature which works for both animals and plants. Revert if this has any side-effects I haven't foreseen.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox/species has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Within the line | ex = [[file:Status iucn2.3 EX.svg|frameless|link=|alt=]]<br />[[Extinction|Extinct]] {{#switch:{{{extinction_date|}}}|y|yes|true|=| ({{{extinction_date}}})}} {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} | {{ns: 0}} | [[Category:IUCN Red List extinct species]] | }}
, could the space between the switch statement and the [[Extinction|Extinct]]
bit be removed? That space essentially nullifies the nbsp in the switch statement result and it causes a double space to occur, which looks confusing (As seen in
White swamphen). Thanks.
Aidan9382 (
talk)
06:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Taxobox,
Template:Taxobox/core,
Template:Speciesbox,
Template:Subspeciesbox and
Module:Automated taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
| type_strain = {{{type_strain|{{{type strain|}}}}}}
to
| type_strain = {{{type_strain|{{{type strain|}}}}}} | type_strain_ref = {{{type_strain_ref|{{{type_strain_ref|}}}}}}
To name a new bacterial species, the type strain must be deposited in at least two culture collections on different continents. Each culture collection gives the type strain a unique designation. So a type strain usually has multiple strain names. For example, the type strain of E. coli is called ATCC 11775 by the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), DSM 30083 by the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ), JCM 1649 by the Japan Collection of Microorganisms (JCM), and LMG 2092 by the Belgian Coordinated Collections of Microorganisms (BCCM). Lists of type strains can be found at resources like
LPSN and
BacDive. Adding a type_strain_ref
field to the taxobox would simplify adding references. This change should also be made to the {{
Speciesbox}} and {{
Subspeciesbox}} templates.
Also, if possible, please change the type_strain
field so that it is NOT centered. This will make it possible to use bulleted lists for the type strains.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
01:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
|type_strain_ref=
right now (changing
Template:Taxobox/core needs care as it has such a high use, and the templates that drive it that could use this parameter would also need changing). Maybe
Jts1882 might look at it sooner.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Taxobox examples
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
type_strain_ref
parameter. As for the other request, now that I can see the list of type strain designations with or without bullet points, I find that I prefer to keep it the way it is (centered). So I withdraw the request for changing the type_strain
parameters.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
03:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)type_strain_ref
parameter. The way you implemented it in the sandbox looks great.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
07:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
type_strain_ref
parameter:
Lawsonella clevelandensis.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk)
17:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Ninjatacoshell: at present Type strain redirects to Type (biology), but this says nothing at all about type strains, or the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes which replaces the Bacteriological Code, so the link in the taxobox is not really helpful to readers. Since you seem to know about this subject, could you add something to International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes? Then the redirect can be revised. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Peter coxhead and
Jts1882:, I've replaced all instances of spaced parameters (e.g. |image caption=
) with underscored parameters (e.g. |image_caption=
. I think support for spaced parameters should now be disabled and
Module:Check for unknown parameters be added to Taxobox so any future instances of spaced parameters show up in an error tracking category. I'm posting here because some articles with Taxobox still had spaced parameters until today. Articles with the automatic taxobox templates haven't really had any instances of spaced parameters for several years now (although there is a trickle of a couple new instances a month), but as far as I'm aware, spaced parameters are still supported in automatic taxoboxes and don't show up in an error tracking category.
Plantdrew (
talk)
01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I note that very few species have images in their taxoboxes.
We've had great success with adding geographical coordinates to articles, helped by an extensive system of tracking categories for articles without coordinate and a small army of dedicated geocoders, to the point where we have reached a tipping point to where contributors of new articles about geolocatable entities now add coordinates by default.
There is an opportunity to something very similar here for species images, using Template:Taxobox/core. I propose to modify it to detect if images are completely missing (that is to say none of image, image2, image_upright, image2_upright), and to add a category "$ORDER taxobox without images", where $ORDER is taken from the taxonomic hierarchy.
Obviously the main problem is the lack of suitably licensed and labelled images, but if we had these tracking categories, they might be a useful motivator to people to add images where available, or (even better) for curators of suitable images to release them under a license that would allow them to be mass-contributed to the encylopedia (and Commons) using bot edits. — The Anome ( talk) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
...and speaking of which, I've just noticed that the National History Museum are currently digitising their specimen collection under CC-BY-4.0! See here for just one example. And it looks like other organizations are doing the same, and some have been uploaded to Commons already, see here and also here. — The Anome ( talk) 12:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
|needs image=
, which is used to track articles missing images (but it's not necessarily set correctly; many articles that don't have images don't have a |needs image=
, and there are some articles where an image has been added, but the WikiProject banner on the talk page hasn't been updated (there is
a tool to check for articles that have images but are flagged as neeeding images). TemplateData can also be used to find articles missing images; if a parameter is flagged as required in TemplateData, the TemplateData error report can show all articles that don't have a value for that parameter).@
The Anome: there's a Lua function in
Module:Autotaxobox which will find the order for a genus, if it exists in the taxonomic hierarchy. Thus
However, I'm doubtful of the value of categories for taxa without images by order. Thus for spiders, PetScan found 4,462 stub articles with no images. Some of the higher taxa may possibly have lower ranked members with images in Commons, but most of the species will not. For groups like spiders, there just aren't useful accurately identified copyright free images available. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps there should just be be a single hidden tracking category for "Taxoboxes without images" to help bot operators find these articles (perhaps with an auxliary category "Taxoboxes without images with images on Commons"), and leave it at that? Or is even that too much of an invitation for misguided enthusiasts? It would be a pity to be forced to resort to using title matching and article source scraping to find these. — The Anome ( talk) 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
hastemplate:Taxobox/core -insource:/\| *image *\=/
(i.e. has a taxobox but appears not to have an image parameter) gives about 111,000 results. I think the existing categories by Wikiproject, like
Category:Wikipedia requested images of spiders, are sufficient.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
18:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
|image=
with no value specified. That search only turn up articles that don't contain |image=
at all.
Template Data for Speciesbox shows ~260,000 articles, of which ~105,000 have an image specified. That means are 155,000 articles with Speciesbox that don't have an image. Modifying Peter's search with Speciesbox instead of Taxobox/core gives ~60,000 articles; that means there ~95,000 articles with Speciesbox and |image=
with no value specified. It should be possible to get a list of the ~105,000 Speciesbox articles that don't have an image, but I don't know an efficient way to do it (if |image=
is "required" rather than "suggested" in Template Data, the Template Data report will show articles that are missing the required parameter, but only in batches of 100 results per page).
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
|image=
with only whitespace up to the end of the line, i.e. empty values, but the counts would only show a very large number again.)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but NatureServe conservation templates, such as this one here, should read "Unranked, not "Unrankable". NatureServe has an "unranked" status, they do not have an "unrankable", because that implies ranking to be impossible, which is absurd. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but it is kind of strange. And the example I gave is listed as "Unranked", but when I tried to change it to GNR, I got an "Invalid status" error. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 08:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see WT:Automated taxobox system#Forma specialis taxa for a question about taxoboxes in articles about forma specialis (f.sp.) fungus taxa. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, changing the U.S. Endangered Species Act status parameter does not automatically change the article's category: Category:ESA endangered species, Category:ESA threatened species, etc. (not sure if there are categories for delisted or declared extinct). Could these please be added? 108.18.207.147 ( talk) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
hastemplate:speciesbox insource:/status2*_system *= *ESA/ insource:/status2* *= *L*E/
198 resultshastemplate:speciesbox insource:/status2*_system *= *ESA/ insource:/status2* *= *L*T/
53 results
Pygmy hog | |
---|---|
Critically Depleted (IUCN Green)
[2]
| |
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Class: | Mammalia |
Order: | Artiodactyla |
Family: | Suidae |
Genus: |
Porcula Hodgson, 1847 |
Species: | P. salvania
[1]
|
Binomial name | |
Porcula salvania
[1]
Hodgson, 1847
|
The IUCN now includes a Green Status on some of their listings. Maybe only the Endangered ones? I don't know. Anyway, I saw it at IUCN's pygmy hog listing. We may want to incorporate this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
|status2_system=IUCN Green
and |status2=Critically Depleted
(see taxobox to right). If someone created a set of graphics it could be handled as a recognised system. —
Jts1882 |
talk
12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)References
Is there a way the rank "infraregnum" could be added? It is necessary to showcase some disputed taxa like the Apusozoa (infrakingdom Diacentrida, subkingdom Sarcomastigota, kingdom Protozoa). Thanks in advance. —Snoteleks 🦠 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Taxobox/Archive 31 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Clade: | Diaphoretickes |
Subkingdom: | SAR |
Infrakingdom: | Halvaria |
|auto=
). I'm surprised that auto wasn't the default as it probably should be. I've updated the module to allow infraregnum with the manual taxonomy parameters (although this won't work with the {{
taxobox}} template). —
Jts1882 |
talk
17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Apusozoa (obsolete paraphyletic group)
| |
---|---|
![]() | |
Apusomonas sp. | |
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Clade: | Obazoa |
Phylum: |
Apusozoa Cavalier-Smith 1997 emend. 2013 |
Groups included | |
Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa | |
|auto=yes
or |auto=virus
. I think {{
paraphyletic group}} should be changed to use |auto=yes
by default and require |auto=no
to use the manual taxon parameters if absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary and think it would be better to use an automated taxobox. This makes it easier to review the taxonomies used on Wikipedia.|auto=yes
to the existing taxobox gives a suitable taxobox. I've added it here (see right) with a few tweaks. —
Jts1882 |
talk
16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
In the article stub about Cytherellidae the taxobox says it belongs to the order Platycopida, which is correct. And the taxobox in the article stub about Punciidae says that too belongs to the order Platycopida, which is wrong. It belongs to the order Palaeocopida. But when I change the info in the taxobox to correct it, the taxobox describing Cytherellidae changes too, from Platycopida to Palaeocopida. And vice versa. The two taxoboxes are connected, so when you edit it in one of the mentioned articles, the same thing happens in the other. Is there a way to separate them? Hipporoo ( talk) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There are many parameters listed as "deprecated" under Template:Taxobox#Template parameters, but they appear in the template code and in the documentation, albeit with heavily caveated use cases. They are:
|image_width=
|image_caption_align=
|range_map_width=
|alliance=
|variety=
|color_as=
plus their numerical counterparts, |image2_width=
, etc.
It would be more accurate to change these to "discouraged", since the only parameter that's actually deprecated, from what I can tell, is |image_size=
, since it has been removed from the immediate (i.e. non-nested) template code and from the documentation.
Related question: should all empty discouraged parameters be removed? I've been removing empty |image_width=
(only)
since at least 2020. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
14:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
|color_as=
is an instance of "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases". I suppose |image_caption_align=
may be as well, but I have never come across it being used in my time on Wikipedia.|varietas=
should be used instead of |variety=
Most of the parameter names for ranks are Latin not English (regnum/classis/ordo/familia, not kingdom/class/order/family with phylum/genus/species being the same in Latin and English).|alliance=
is also English, but isn't used anywhere. I'm pretty sure I set it to "deprecated" as work-around when trying to find articles that used it and update them to recent classifications that didn't use that rank (the
TemplateData Error Report will show articles using a particular parameter/value when a template has few transclusions. When a template has many transclusions (over 50k, I think) the option to see which articles use a particular parameter is disabled unless that parameter is marked as deprecated).|color=
meets your stricter definition of deprecated; it's been removed from the template code, and I just removed it from the documentation. It should definitely be removed when empty. It could be removed when non-empty, as it does not do anything. I have been slowly working through the articles with "color = lightgrey" (the only value specified now) and converting them to automatic taxoboxes. I wouldn't mind at all if you got rid of all non-empty instance |color=
now, but it is something I intend to eventually achieve myself if nobody else does it. "image_width=220px" is another bugbear of mine (220 is already the default), that I'm inclined to address with automatic taxoboxes, but wouldn't mind of you went ahead and got rid of it while leaving manual taxoboxes in place.
Plantdrew (
talk)
02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)|color_as=
, that are needed only in exceptional cases, so are "deprecated", but need to be supported indefinitely.image_width
parameters are a different matter. I would like to remove them altogether. However, right now
this tool reports 3,136 uses of |image_width=
(plus some for other image width parameters), which ideally would be checked first. On the other hand, these parameters don't exist in the automated taxobox templates, like {{
Speciesbox}}
and {{
Automatic taxobox}}
, so perhaps just removing them from the manual taxobox template would be ok.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
|image_width=
from the code. None of the instances of 100px actually have an image. The remaining values range from 200px to 250px which isn't really a big enough difference from the default 220px to "fix" images with extreme aspect ratios. 234px/235px is used in fungus articles with {{
Mycomorphbox}} to make the taxobox display at the same width as the mycomorphbox. If different widths in taxobox and mycomorphbox is even a problem in the first place, a better solution for that would be to make mycomorphboxes display at the same width as a taxobox with a 220px image.
Plantdrew (
talk)
16:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|image_width=
first, to avoid all the pages showing up in the taxobox error-tracking categories.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)