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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I just came across
Template:Taxonomy/Saturniiformes which has rank set to "series" and is just below superfamily in rank. There are a few taxonomy templates for plant series (as a rank below subgenus/sectio), e.g.
Template:Taxonomy/Banksia ser. Ochraceae. I know manual taxoboxes have |zoodivisio=
and |zoosectio=
to account for different placement of plant/animal division/section ranks in the taxonomic hierarchy. And there is a numeric value associated with the rank parameters recognized by manual taxoboxes that ensures they display the hierarchy in the right order. I guess the numeric value isn't used by automatic taxoboxes? The order in which ranks are displayed is determined solely by successive parent parameters?
Should there be a "zooseries" rank? Everything seems to be working OK with the plant/animal series templates I've linked above. I guess series isn't checked by Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks since it seems like putting series below both superfamily and sectio would be anomalous one way or the other. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops, realized everything is NOT quite working OK. Saturniiformes is italicized by the taxonomy template (which would be correct for the plant rank). Plantdrew ( talk) 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
References
I recently created a manual taxobox, which is more-or-less ok, at Puccinia coronata f. sp. avenae. There are more articles at this rank: see Category:Forma specialis taxa. The articles I've looked at use two main approaches to a taxobox:
{{
Subspeciesbox}}
, which (a) is meant for ICZN names – {{
Infraspeciesbox}}
is used for ICNafp names (b) has "Subspecies: F. o. f.sp. pisi" which is clearly wrong.My recollection is that we discussed adding the rank of form/forma to {{
Infraspeciesbox}}
and decided not to do so on the grounds that there would be few articles needing it and it would make the template yet more complicated. My preference, I think, is to accept that a forma specialis taxon should use a manual taxobox and revise {{
Taxobox}}
to accept "forma_specialis" in addition to form/forma so that it can display e.g. "Forma specialis: P. coronata f.sp. avenae".
What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
{{
Paraphyletic group}}
via
Jts1882's
Module:Biota infobox. It can be driven from a differently named template for clarity, but on reflection, this is the best way forward, since Jts1882 has already done almost all the work needed.{{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
as a more obviously titled front-end to
Module:Biota infobox for special infraspecific ranks. So far I've not found any problems.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 08:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC){{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
, which can be checked:
|infraspecies_rank1=
was left bare in the taxobox rather than including the abbreviate species name. For the strain in
El Tor it seems reasonable. Should this be V. cholerae str. El Tor (i.e. the abbreviated trinomial name) or does it need different treatment?|species_link=
and |type_strain=
, although I'm not certain they should be supported.|species_link=
,
bacterial blight of cotton links to a redirect in the species line (
Xanthomonas axonopodis redirects to
Citrus canker). In that case the solution is probably to create an article for Xanthomonas axonopodis; citrus canker is pv. citri, so there should be an article for the species that has pathovars infecting citrus, cotton and cassava. And I suspect in most cases where we have an article at the common name (of a disease), the title will refer a particular host, in which case there should probably be an article at the species title with subarticles for f.sp./pv. taxa that infect particular hosts. So |species_link=
may not be needed at all.|type_strain=
may not be needed either.
Plantdrew (
talk) 16:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC){{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
has "Trinomial name" linking to
Infraspecific name (botany), which is a redirect to
Infraspecific name; the redirect should be bypassed (although I don't see much value in having that as a link at all (especially since it's inconsistent; manual taxoboxes for ranks above species and {{
Automatic taxobox}} don't have a link like this, it's only for species (as "
binomial name") and infraspecies)).
Manual taxoboxes for plant infraspecies also link to
Infraspecific name (botany); see e.g.
Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum. Manual taxoboxes for animal infraspecies link to
trinomen (which redirects to
Trinomial nomenclature); see e.g.
Onithochiton neglectus neglectus. I'm not sure how related that is to the link in {{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
; presumably the different links in plants vs. animals with manual taxoboxes is related to the logic that governs the taxobox color, but I just tested {{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
in an animal article and it linked to
Infraspecific name (botany). {{
Subspeciesbox}} and {{
Infraspeciesbox}} both produce links to "trinomial nomenclature" (see e.g.
Kamchatka brown bear and
Paeonia daurica subsp. wittmanniana).
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
|auto=subspeciesbox
and the botanical link when using |auto=infraspeciesbox
. The new template {{
infraspeciesbox special}}
uses the latter. However, I now see that both {{
subspeciesbox}}
and {{
infraspeciesbox}}
link to
Trinomial nomenclature, the deafult of the switch statement. Perhaps it would be best for all taxoboxes to use that link and remove the kingdom=specific links.|type_strain=
should have been supported, but I hadn't allowed the parameter for the |auto=infraspeciesbox
option. It now accepts the parameter with or without the underscore. I've added |species_link=
and |species_extinct=
and will add |subspecies_link=
and |subspecies_extinct=
when I find an example to test. As an aside, is parameter |species_link=
needed, as there should be redirects for scientific names to common name page titles. —
Jts1882 |
talk 07:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)|species_link=
is that some of us that have different display colours set for redirects, tend to see a redirect in taxobox as a possible error, so it's tidier to have all the links blue. I accept it's a marginal case.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Currently the parameters are:
|infraspecies_rank1=
– name of the taxon|infraspecies_rank1_name=
– name of the rank|infraspecies_rank1_abbrev=
– abbreviation for separatorI find that confusing as {{para|infraspecies_rank1} can be read as the name of the rank rather than the name of the taxon. So I propose a change to:
|infraspecies1_name=
– name of the taxon|infraspecies1_rank=
– name of the rank|infraspecies1_abbrev=
– abbreviation for separatorI can make the code changes leaving the older names, which can be removed later. Or can someone suggest better names? — Jts1882 | talk 10:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
|image_caption=
and |image2_caption=
or |status_system=
and |status2_system=
– although these examples suggest that the "1" parameters should have aliases without the "1" for full consistency.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)When I hover over the scientific classification edit link in an automatic taxobox (the pencil icon), the mouseover text merely reads "e" instead of "edit". I don't know if this is intended (if so, it is somewhat confusing). If it isn't intended, could it please be fixed? The problem doesn't occur on {{ speciesbox}} (where the mouseover text reads "edit"), but it is also present on {{ oobox}}, as far as I can tell. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 16:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
|edit link=
is still required as it acts as a flag to display the icon in {{
taxobox/core}}. An alternative would be to use |parent=
as the flag as that is the parameter used to flag the classification hierarchy table. Then the parameter can be removed from the taxobox templates (and the function in the module for automatic taxoboxes). —
Jts1882 |
talk 09:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
|edit link=
parameter? —
Jts1882 |
talk 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on a project to remove uses of the infobox class and came across the following pages.
Can someone give me some insight into what the tables at right are being used for (in each, if necessary)? Izno ( talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
class="infobox biota"
? Not that I can see; it's just the format chosen by
Smith609 in 2011.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)infobox
class was introduced in 2006 with
this edit and the important use is now in {{
taxobox/core}}. If the goal is to remove the CSS to templatestyles, is there (or will there be) a generic {{
infobox/styles.css}} or should we create a {{
taxobox/styles.css}} that can be used in all the taxobox templates? —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
div
rather than table
(see also
MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Remnants of things). You can start thinking about that now if you want, but this template isn't the only one that would make that difficult right now, and I've been focusing on the easier cases (like the 4k uses in mainspace of the class directly and the non-infobox uses in the template/module spaces).
Izno (
talk) 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)most illustrate part of the taxobox output so use the same classes as the taxobox tablesThis is what I was trying to make sure I understood. Which of the 6 actually do that and which of the 6 are just "consistency with the others"/"pretty styling"? Izno ( talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
30 June 2023 update
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto | # auto added since 30 December 2022 | # manual subtracted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algae | 2105 | 278 | 2383 | 88.3 | 28 | 5 |
Amphibians and Reptiles | 22170 | 219 | 22389 | 99.0 | 1189 | 12 |
Animals | 10084 | 2058 | 12142 | 83.1 | 396 | 186 |
Arthropods | 9908 | 3424 | 13332 | 74.3 | 859 | 189 |
Beetles | 22341 | 15703 | 38044 | 58.7 | 1792 | 1799 |
Birds | 14291 | 81 | 14372 | 99.4 | 96 | 3 |
Bivalves | 1660 | 34 | 1694 | 98.0 | 16 | -1 |
Cephalopods | 1999 | 568 | 2567 | 77.9 | 30 | 2 |
Dinosaurs | 1632 | 1 | 1633 | 99.9 | 14 | 3 |
Diptera | 13385 | 2642 | 16027 | 83.5 | 712 | 185 |
Fishes | 23998 | 1862 | 25860 | 92.8 | 1880 | 806 |
Fungi | 9643 | 5684 | 15327 | 62.9 | 690 | 113 |
Gastropods | 24442 | 9750 | 34192 | 71.5 | 1766 | 1603 |
Insects | 52855 | 25318 | 78173 | 67.6 | 3428 | 2676 |
Lepidoptera | 69755 | 28593 | 98348 | 70.9 | 3427 | 3459 |
Mammals | 8206 | 153 | 8359 | 98.2 | 155 | 31 |
Marine life | 7944 | 1320 | 9264 | 85.8 | 360 | 148 |
Microbiology | 6244 | 6693 | 12937 | 48.3 | 484 | 434 |
Palaeontology | 14090 | 3736 | 17826 | 79.0 | 387 | 60 |
Plants | 78452 | 964 | 79416 | 98.8 | 2561 | 1006 |
Primates | 980 | 0 | 980 | 100 | -1 | 0 |
Protista | 170 | 25 | 195 | 87.2 | 67 | -4 |
Rodents | 3120 | 29 | 3149 | 99.1 | 58 | 1 |
Sharks | 818 | 49 | 867 | 94.3 | 14 | 1 |
Spiders | 9698 | 0 | 9698 | 100 | 223 | 0 |
Tree of Life | 82 | 11 | 93 | 88.2 | 3 | 0 |
Turtles | 754 | 1 | 755 | 99.9 | 7 | 1 |
Viruses | 1714 | 56 | 1770 | 96.8 | 6 | 2 |
Total | 364568 | 93154 | 457722 | 79.6 | 18579 | 11535 |
Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bats | 1597 | 0 | 1597 | 100 |
Cats | 180 | 0 | 180 | 100 |
Cetaceans | 433 | 0 | 433 | 100 |
Dogs | 243 | 0 | 243 | 100 |
Equine | 107 | 0 | 107 | 100 |
Methods and caveats (copy-pasted from previous update)
|
---|
Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either {{ Taxobox}}, or any of {{ Automatic taxobox}}+{{ Speciesbox}}+({{ Infraspeciesbox}} and/or {{ Subspeciesbox}} (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for {{ Virusbox}} rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool ( https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles. Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 220 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
|
Parrosaurus is the only dinosaur with a manual taxobox, may end up being merged. Solitudo is only turtle now (and not linked from stated parent Testudinidae) but Hoan Kiem turtle had a manual taxobox last time around and IMHO shouldn't have a taxobox of any kind. I don't know what's going on with beetles and Lepidoptera; the total for beetles is down by 7 since last time, and down by 32 for Lepidoptera. Perhaps a bunch of articles on synonyms have been merged, or maybe I made a mistake in my last update. Primates has total articles down by 1. The -1 value for bivalve manual taxoboxes removed means that there is one more article with a manual taxobox than last time. For protists -4 is due to more articles being tagged for the project (many relevant articles are still untagged).
Progress the last 6 months was slower than it has ever been since I started tracking "# manual subtracted" (in June 2021), and is likely slower than it has been since I began these reports in 2017. I had been responsible for a large number of manual subtractions due to my efforts to implement automatic taxoboxes for plants, but plants are almost done now so my contributions have dwindled (although I still am making some efforts to implement automatic taxoboxes in various groups of organisms). Progress on fish had been stalled for awhile but picked back up in the last 6 months.
I have some detailed notes breaking remaining plant manual taxoboxes down by family at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. Less detailed notes at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress that break animals down by phylum, and insects and fishes by order. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Presently, the only guidance I can find regarding the format for a list of synonyms is here, and as a practicing taxonomist, I find the given example runs exactly counter to the convention in all scientific catalogues of names. That is, in catalogues (print catalogues, not databases), synonyms are always given in chronological order, never alphabetical. The example given puts the two names in alphabetical order, rather than chronological. That approach is confusing, to be honest, and not nearly as useful as a chronological listing. This is increasingly important as the list of names gets longer. It is also especially important when one or more of the names in the list of synonyms is OLDER than the name in use for the taxon; this situation in taxonomy is rare, and it is especially noteworthy, but it is only readily visible when the list is chronological. I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should expressly adopt a policy to follow chronological order for lists of synonyms, as there does not presently appear to be any formal policy at all, and in the absence of an existing policy, perhaps establishing one will not be controversial. If necessary, I can raise this topic over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, but this seems like the correct place to start the discussion, at least. Dyanega ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
New thread has been started, Thanks. Dyanega ( talk) 23:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way to delete taxonomy templates that are no longer in use? The fungal family Arthopyreniaceae is now considered to be a synonym of Trypetheliaceae, so we no longer need its associated taxonomy template. MeegsC ( talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
In
this edit of Arbutus andrachne, |display_parents=
had the value as Arbutoideae. The taxobox displays subfamily Arbutoideae, which is 2 parents up from the species. I experimented a little, and it appears that any (?) non-numeric value for |display_parents=
results in displaying 2 parents (I tried alphabetic and non-alphanumeric characters). It's not a big deal, but it is strange behavior.
Plantdrew (
talk) 03:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
|display_taxa=
instead of the default zero. The tonumber()
at line 111 of
Module:Autotaxobox returns nil rather than the expected/default zero and that sets displayN
to 2 instead of 1, which is the intended default for {{
speciesbox}}, whereas in
Module:Automated_taxobox |display_taxa=
defaults 1, which sets displayN
to 2. The fix needs to be in {{
speciesbox}} and the expression error. Those parse functions are horrible to deal with. —
Jts1882 |
talk 09:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)I recently came across the Wikipedia article for clades, and a lot of Wikipedia articles for the Tree of life are missing this more modern take on taxonomy. I think it should probably be part of a template, but I'm not sure how it should be laid out. It would be great if an editor with more knowledge or official authority on this topic could comment on this. Galactiger ( talk) 11:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've attempted to create a taxonomic template for this genus but for some reason it doesn't seem to be generating correctly. Could someone more knowledgable than me suggest ways in which I can rectify this? Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ambrosia10 ( talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to make a taxonomy template for my first article Bubodens, but when I try to create it I get a permission error with "Due to the high impact of editing taxonomy templates, it has been decided to disallow new users to edit them...." How can I get this taxonomy template made for my page? Mojoceratops66 ( talk) 08:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
30 December update
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto | # auto added since 30 June 2023 | # manual subtracted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algae | 2163 | 227 | 2390 | 90.5 | 58 | 51 |
Amphibians and Reptiles | 22524 | 206 | 22730 | 99.1 | 354 | 13 |
Animals | 11167 | 1158 | 12325 | 90.6 | 1083 | 900 |
Arthropods | 10774 | 3067 | 13841 | 77.8 | 866 | 357 |
Beetles | 24731 | 13421 | 38152 | 64.8 | 2390 | 2282 |
Birds | 14358 | 62 | 14420 | 99.6 | 67 | 19 |
Bivalves | 1674 | 32 | 1706 | 98.1 | 14 | 2 |
Cephalopods | 2009 | 566 | 2575 | 78.0 | 10 | 2 |
Dinosaurs | 1643 | 0 | 1643 | 100 | 11 | 1 |
Diptera | 14160 | 2165 | 16325 | 86.7 | 775 | 477 |
Fishes | 24408 | 1671 | 26079 | 93.6 | 410 | 191 |
Fungi | 10655 | 5171 | 15826 | 67.3 | 1012 | 513 |
Gastropods | 27510 | 7224 | 34734 | 79.2 | 3068 | 2526 |
Insects | 57978 | 20719 | 78697 | 73.7 | 5123 | 4599 |
Lepidoptera | 74631 | 23766 | 98397 | 75.8 | 4876 | 4827 |
Mammals | 8301 | 144 | 8445 | 98.3 | 95 | 9 |
Marine life | 8723 | 672 | 9395 | 92.8 | 779 | 648 |
Microbiology | 6971 | 6030 | 13001 | 53.6 | 727 | 663 |
Palaeontology | 14779 | 3474 | 18253 | 81.0 | 689 | 262 |
Plants | 79920 | 611 | 80531 | 99.2 | 1468 | 353 |
Primates | 979 | 0 | 979 | 100 | -1 | 0 |
Protista | 380 | 80 | 460 | 82.6 | 210 | -55 |
Rodents | 3137 | 28 | 3165 | 99.1 | 17 | 1 |
Sharks | 829 | 45 | 874 | 94.9 | 11 | 4 |
Spiders | 10040 | 0 | 10040 | 100 | 342 | 0 |
Tree of Life | 89 | 6 | 95 | 93.7 | 7 | 5 |
Turtles | 759 | 0 | 759 | 100 | 5 | 1 |
Viruses | 1722 | 55 | 1777 | 96.9 | 8 | 1 |
Total | 383888 | 76708 | 460596 | 83.3 | 19320 | 16446 |
Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cats | 186 | 0 | 186 | 100 |
Cetaceans | 439 | 0 | 439 | 100 |
Dogs | 241 | 0 | 241 | 100 |
Equine | 109 | 0 | 109 | 100 |
Methods and caveats (copy-pasted from previous update)
|
---|
Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either {{ Taxobox}}, or any of {{ Automatic taxobox}}+{{ Speciesbox}}+({{ Infraspeciesbox}} and/or {{ Subspeciesbox}} (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for {{ Virusbox}} rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool ( https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles. Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 207 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
|
The template for the Bats taskforce was merged into the template for WikiProject Mammals since my last update. I can't track bats separately anymore, but they had been at 100% automatic taxoboxes for a couple years now. WikiProject Protista is slowly being added to more articles; there has been an increase in the number of tagged protist articles with manual taxoboxes. Primates has one less article than it did last time; perhaps a taxon has been lumped and an article merged.
All projects are now over 50% automatic taxoboxes and the majority are now over 90%.
I have some detailed notes breaking remaining plant manual taxoboxes down by family at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. Less detailed notes at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress that break animals down by phylum, and insects and fishes by order. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:10, 31 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I just came across
Template:Taxonomy/Saturniiformes which has rank set to "series" and is just below superfamily in rank. There are a few taxonomy templates for plant series (as a rank below subgenus/sectio), e.g.
Template:Taxonomy/Banksia ser. Ochraceae. I know manual taxoboxes have |zoodivisio=
and |zoosectio=
to account for different placement of plant/animal division/section ranks in the taxonomic hierarchy. And there is a numeric value associated with the rank parameters recognized by manual taxoboxes that ensures they display the hierarchy in the right order. I guess the numeric value isn't used by automatic taxoboxes? The order in which ranks are displayed is determined solely by successive parent parameters?
Should there be a "zooseries" rank? Everything seems to be working OK with the plant/animal series templates I've linked above. I guess series isn't checked by Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks since it seems like putting series below both superfamily and sectio would be anomalous one way or the other. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops, realized everything is NOT quite working OK. Saturniiformes is italicized by the taxonomy template (which would be correct for the plant rank). Plantdrew ( talk) 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
References
I recently created a manual taxobox, which is more-or-less ok, at Puccinia coronata f. sp. avenae. There are more articles at this rank: see Category:Forma specialis taxa. The articles I've looked at use two main approaches to a taxobox:
{{
Subspeciesbox}}
, which (a) is meant for ICZN names – {{
Infraspeciesbox}}
is used for ICNafp names (b) has "Subspecies: F. o. f.sp. pisi" which is clearly wrong.My recollection is that we discussed adding the rank of form/forma to {{
Infraspeciesbox}}
and decided not to do so on the grounds that there would be few articles needing it and it would make the template yet more complicated. My preference, I think, is to accept that a forma specialis taxon should use a manual taxobox and revise {{
Taxobox}}
to accept "forma_specialis" in addition to form/forma so that it can display e.g. "Forma specialis: P. coronata f.sp. avenae".
What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
{{
Paraphyletic group}}
via
Jts1882's
Module:Biota infobox. It can be driven from a differently named template for clarity, but on reflection, this is the best way forward, since Jts1882 has already done almost all the work needed.{{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
as a more obviously titled front-end to
Module:Biota infobox for special infraspecific ranks. So far I've not found any problems.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 08:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC){{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
, which can be checked:
|infraspecies_rank1=
was left bare in the taxobox rather than including the abbreviate species name. For the strain in
El Tor it seems reasonable. Should this be V. cholerae str. El Tor (i.e. the abbreviated trinomial name) or does it need different treatment?|species_link=
and |type_strain=
, although I'm not certain they should be supported.|species_link=
,
bacterial blight of cotton links to a redirect in the species line (
Xanthomonas axonopodis redirects to
Citrus canker). In that case the solution is probably to create an article for Xanthomonas axonopodis; citrus canker is pv. citri, so there should be an article for the species that has pathovars infecting citrus, cotton and cassava. And I suspect in most cases where we have an article at the common name (of a disease), the title will refer a particular host, in which case there should probably be an article at the species title with subarticles for f.sp./pv. taxa that infect particular hosts. So |species_link=
may not be needed at all.|type_strain=
may not be needed either.
Plantdrew (
talk) 16:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC){{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
has "Trinomial name" linking to
Infraspecific name (botany), which is a redirect to
Infraspecific name; the redirect should be bypassed (although I don't see much value in having that as a link at all (especially since it's inconsistent; manual taxoboxes for ranks above species and {{
Automatic taxobox}} don't have a link like this, it's only for species (as "
binomial name") and infraspecies)).
Manual taxoboxes for plant infraspecies also link to
Infraspecific name (botany); see e.g.
Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum. Manual taxoboxes for animal infraspecies link to
trinomen (which redirects to
Trinomial nomenclature); see e.g.
Onithochiton neglectus neglectus. I'm not sure how related that is to the link in {{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
; presumably the different links in plants vs. animals with manual taxoboxes is related to the logic that governs the taxobox color, but I just tested {{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
in an animal article and it linked to
Infraspecific name (botany). {{
Subspeciesbox}} and {{
Infraspeciesbox}} both produce links to "trinomial nomenclature" (see e.g.
Kamchatka brown bear and
Paeonia daurica subsp. wittmanniana).
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
|auto=subspeciesbox
and the botanical link when using |auto=infraspeciesbox
. The new template {{
infraspeciesbox special}}
uses the latter. However, I now see that both {{
subspeciesbox}}
and {{
infraspeciesbox}}
link to
Trinomial nomenclature, the deafult of the switch statement. Perhaps it would be best for all taxoboxes to use that link and remove the kingdom=specific links.|type_strain=
should have been supported, but I hadn't allowed the parameter for the |auto=infraspeciesbox
option. It now accepts the parameter with or without the underscore. I've added |species_link=
and |species_extinct=
and will add |subspecies_link=
and |subspecies_extinct=
when I find an example to test. As an aside, is parameter |species_link=
needed, as there should be redirects for scientific names to common name page titles. —
Jts1882 |
talk 07:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)|species_link=
is that some of us that have different display colours set for redirects, tend to see a redirect in taxobox as a possible error, so it's tidier to have all the links blue. I accept it's a marginal case.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Currently the parameters are:
|infraspecies_rank1=
– name of the taxon|infraspecies_rank1_name=
– name of the rank|infraspecies_rank1_abbrev=
– abbreviation for separatorI find that confusing as {{para|infraspecies_rank1} can be read as the name of the rank rather than the name of the taxon. So I propose a change to:
|infraspecies1_name=
– name of the taxon|infraspecies1_rank=
– name of the rank|infraspecies1_abbrev=
– abbreviation for separatorI can make the code changes leaving the older names, which can be removed later. Or can someone suggest better names? — Jts1882 | talk 10:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
|image_caption=
and |image2_caption=
or |status_system=
and |status2_system=
– although these examples suggest that the "1" parameters should have aliases without the "1" for full consistency.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)When I hover over the scientific classification edit link in an automatic taxobox (the pencil icon), the mouseover text merely reads "e" instead of "edit". I don't know if this is intended (if so, it is somewhat confusing). If it isn't intended, could it please be fixed? The problem doesn't occur on {{ speciesbox}} (where the mouseover text reads "edit"), but it is also present on {{ oobox}}, as far as I can tell. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 16:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
|edit link=
is still required as it acts as a flag to display the icon in {{
taxobox/core}}. An alternative would be to use |parent=
as the flag as that is the parameter used to flag the classification hierarchy table. Then the parameter can be removed from the taxobox templates (and the function in the module for automatic taxoboxes). —
Jts1882 |
talk 09:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
|edit link=
parameter? —
Jts1882 |
talk 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on a project to remove uses of the infobox class and came across the following pages.
Can someone give me some insight into what the tables at right are being used for (in each, if necessary)? Izno ( talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
class="infobox biota"
? Not that I can see; it's just the format chosen by
Smith609 in 2011.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)infobox
class was introduced in 2006 with
this edit and the important use is now in {{
taxobox/core}}. If the goal is to remove the CSS to templatestyles, is there (or will there be) a generic {{
infobox/styles.css}} or should we create a {{
taxobox/styles.css}} that can be used in all the taxobox templates? —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
div
rather than table
(see also
MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Remnants of things). You can start thinking about that now if you want, but this template isn't the only one that would make that difficult right now, and I've been focusing on the easier cases (like the 4k uses in mainspace of the class directly and the non-infobox uses in the template/module spaces).
Izno (
talk) 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)most illustrate part of the taxobox output so use the same classes as the taxobox tablesThis is what I was trying to make sure I understood. Which of the 6 actually do that and which of the 6 are just "consistency with the others"/"pretty styling"? Izno ( talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
30 June 2023 update
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto | # auto added since 30 December 2022 | # manual subtracted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algae | 2105 | 278 | 2383 | 88.3 | 28 | 5 |
Amphibians and Reptiles | 22170 | 219 | 22389 | 99.0 | 1189 | 12 |
Animals | 10084 | 2058 | 12142 | 83.1 | 396 | 186 |
Arthropods | 9908 | 3424 | 13332 | 74.3 | 859 | 189 |
Beetles | 22341 | 15703 | 38044 | 58.7 | 1792 | 1799 |
Birds | 14291 | 81 | 14372 | 99.4 | 96 | 3 |
Bivalves | 1660 | 34 | 1694 | 98.0 | 16 | -1 |
Cephalopods | 1999 | 568 | 2567 | 77.9 | 30 | 2 |
Dinosaurs | 1632 | 1 | 1633 | 99.9 | 14 | 3 |
Diptera | 13385 | 2642 | 16027 | 83.5 | 712 | 185 |
Fishes | 23998 | 1862 | 25860 | 92.8 | 1880 | 806 |
Fungi | 9643 | 5684 | 15327 | 62.9 | 690 | 113 |
Gastropods | 24442 | 9750 | 34192 | 71.5 | 1766 | 1603 |
Insects | 52855 | 25318 | 78173 | 67.6 | 3428 | 2676 |
Lepidoptera | 69755 | 28593 | 98348 | 70.9 | 3427 | 3459 |
Mammals | 8206 | 153 | 8359 | 98.2 | 155 | 31 |
Marine life | 7944 | 1320 | 9264 | 85.8 | 360 | 148 |
Microbiology | 6244 | 6693 | 12937 | 48.3 | 484 | 434 |
Palaeontology | 14090 | 3736 | 17826 | 79.0 | 387 | 60 |
Plants | 78452 | 964 | 79416 | 98.8 | 2561 | 1006 |
Primates | 980 | 0 | 980 | 100 | -1 | 0 |
Protista | 170 | 25 | 195 | 87.2 | 67 | -4 |
Rodents | 3120 | 29 | 3149 | 99.1 | 58 | 1 |
Sharks | 818 | 49 | 867 | 94.3 | 14 | 1 |
Spiders | 9698 | 0 | 9698 | 100 | 223 | 0 |
Tree of Life | 82 | 11 | 93 | 88.2 | 3 | 0 |
Turtles | 754 | 1 | 755 | 99.9 | 7 | 1 |
Viruses | 1714 | 56 | 1770 | 96.8 | 6 | 2 |
Total | 364568 | 93154 | 457722 | 79.6 | 18579 | 11535 |
Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bats | 1597 | 0 | 1597 | 100 |
Cats | 180 | 0 | 180 | 100 |
Cetaceans | 433 | 0 | 433 | 100 |
Dogs | 243 | 0 | 243 | 100 |
Equine | 107 | 0 | 107 | 100 |
Methods and caveats (copy-pasted from previous update)
|
---|
Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either {{ Taxobox}}, or any of {{ Automatic taxobox}}+{{ Speciesbox}}+({{ Infraspeciesbox}} and/or {{ Subspeciesbox}} (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for {{ Virusbox}} rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool ( https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles. Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 220 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
|
Parrosaurus is the only dinosaur with a manual taxobox, may end up being merged. Solitudo is only turtle now (and not linked from stated parent Testudinidae) but Hoan Kiem turtle had a manual taxobox last time around and IMHO shouldn't have a taxobox of any kind. I don't know what's going on with beetles and Lepidoptera; the total for beetles is down by 7 since last time, and down by 32 for Lepidoptera. Perhaps a bunch of articles on synonyms have been merged, or maybe I made a mistake in my last update. Primates has total articles down by 1. The -1 value for bivalve manual taxoboxes removed means that there is one more article with a manual taxobox than last time. For protists -4 is due to more articles being tagged for the project (many relevant articles are still untagged).
Progress the last 6 months was slower than it has ever been since I started tracking "# manual subtracted" (in June 2021), and is likely slower than it has been since I began these reports in 2017. I had been responsible for a large number of manual subtractions due to my efforts to implement automatic taxoboxes for plants, but plants are almost done now so my contributions have dwindled (although I still am making some efforts to implement automatic taxoboxes in various groups of organisms). Progress on fish had been stalled for awhile but picked back up in the last 6 months.
I have some detailed notes breaking remaining plant manual taxoboxes down by family at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. Less detailed notes at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress that break animals down by phylum, and insects and fishes by order. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Presently, the only guidance I can find regarding the format for a list of synonyms is here, and as a practicing taxonomist, I find the given example runs exactly counter to the convention in all scientific catalogues of names. That is, in catalogues (print catalogues, not databases), synonyms are always given in chronological order, never alphabetical. The example given puts the two names in alphabetical order, rather than chronological. That approach is confusing, to be honest, and not nearly as useful as a chronological listing. This is increasingly important as the list of names gets longer. It is also especially important when one or more of the names in the list of synonyms is OLDER than the name in use for the taxon; this situation in taxonomy is rare, and it is especially noteworthy, but it is only readily visible when the list is chronological. I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should expressly adopt a policy to follow chronological order for lists of synonyms, as there does not presently appear to be any formal policy at all, and in the absence of an existing policy, perhaps establishing one will not be controversial. If necessary, I can raise this topic over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, but this seems like the correct place to start the discussion, at least. Dyanega ( talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
New thread has been started, Thanks. Dyanega ( talk) 23:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way to delete taxonomy templates that are no longer in use? The fungal family Arthopyreniaceae is now considered to be a synonym of Trypetheliaceae, so we no longer need its associated taxonomy template. MeegsC ( talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
In
this edit of Arbutus andrachne, |display_parents=
had the value as Arbutoideae. The taxobox displays subfamily Arbutoideae, which is 2 parents up from the species. I experimented a little, and it appears that any (?) non-numeric value for |display_parents=
results in displaying 2 parents (I tried alphabetic and non-alphanumeric characters). It's not a big deal, but it is strange behavior.
Plantdrew (
talk) 03:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
|display_taxa=
instead of the default zero. The tonumber()
at line 111 of
Module:Autotaxobox returns nil rather than the expected/default zero and that sets displayN
to 2 instead of 1, which is the intended default for {{
speciesbox}}, whereas in
Module:Automated_taxobox |display_taxa=
defaults 1, which sets displayN
to 2. The fix needs to be in {{
speciesbox}} and the expression error. Those parse functions are horrible to deal with. —
Jts1882 |
talk 09:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)I recently came across the Wikipedia article for clades, and a lot of Wikipedia articles for the Tree of life are missing this more modern take on taxonomy. I think it should probably be part of a template, but I'm not sure how it should be laid out. It would be great if an editor with more knowledge or official authority on this topic could comment on this. Galactiger ( talk) 11:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've attempted to create a taxonomic template for this genus but for some reason it doesn't seem to be generating correctly. Could someone more knowledgable than me suggest ways in which I can rectify this? Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ambrosia10 ( talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to make a taxonomy template for my first article Bubodens, but when I try to create it I get a permission error with "Due to the high impact of editing taxonomy templates, it has been decided to disallow new users to edit them...." How can I get this taxonomy template made for my page? Mojoceratops66 ( talk) 08:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
30 December update
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto | # auto added since 30 June 2023 | # manual subtracted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algae | 2163 | 227 | 2390 | 90.5 | 58 | 51 |
Amphibians and Reptiles | 22524 | 206 | 22730 | 99.1 | 354 | 13 |
Animals | 11167 | 1158 | 12325 | 90.6 | 1083 | 900 |
Arthropods | 10774 | 3067 | 13841 | 77.8 | 866 | 357 |
Beetles | 24731 | 13421 | 38152 | 64.8 | 2390 | 2282 |
Birds | 14358 | 62 | 14420 | 99.6 | 67 | 19 |
Bivalves | 1674 | 32 | 1706 | 98.1 | 14 | 2 |
Cephalopods | 2009 | 566 | 2575 | 78.0 | 10 | 2 |
Dinosaurs | 1643 | 0 | 1643 | 100 | 11 | 1 |
Diptera | 14160 | 2165 | 16325 | 86.7 | 775 | 477 |
Fishes | 24408 | 1671 | 26079 | 93.6 | 410 | 191 |
Fungi | 10655 | 5171 | 15826 | 67.3 | 1012 | 513 |
Gastropods | 27510 | 7224 | 34734 | 79.2 | 3068 | 2526 |
Insects | 57978 | 20719 | 78697 | 73.7 | 5123 | 4599 |
Lepidoptera | 74631 | 23766 | 98397 | 75.8 | 4876 | 4827 |
Mammals | 8301 | 144 | 8445 | 98.3 | 95 | 9 |
Marine life | 8723 | 672 | 9395 | 92.8 | 779 | 648 |
Microbiology | 6971 | 6030 | 13001 | 53.6 | 727 | 663 |
Palaeontology | 14779 | 3474 | 18253 | 81.0 | 689 | 262 |
Plants | 79920 | 611 | 80531 | 99.2 | 1468 | 353 |
Primates | 979 | 0 | 979 | 100 | -1 | 0 |
Protista | 380 | 80 | 460 | 82.6 | 210 | -55 |
Rodents | 3137 | 28 | 3165 | 99.1 | 17 | 1 |
Sharks | 829 | 45 | 874 | 94.9 | 11 | 4 |
Spiders | 10040 | 0 | 10040 | 100 | 342 | 0 |
Tree of Life | 89 | 6 | 95 | 93.7 | 7 | 5 |
Turtles | 759 | 0 | 759 | 100 | 5 | 1 |
Viruses | 1722 | 55 | 1777 | 96.9 | 8 | 1 |
Total | 383888 | 76708 | 460596 | 83.3 | 19320 | 16446 |
Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cats | 186 | 0 | 186 | 100 |
Cetaceans | 439 | 0 | 439 | 100 |
Dogs | 241 | 0 | 241 | 100 |
Equine | 109 | 0 | 109 | 100 |
Methods and caveats (copy-pasted from previous update)
|
---|
Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either {{ Taxobox}}, or any of {{ Automatic taxobox}}+{{ Speciesbox}}+({{ Infraspeciesbox}} and/or {{ Subspeciesbox}} (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for {{ Virusbox}} rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool ( https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles. Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 207 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
|
The template for the Bats taskforce was merged into the template for WikiProject Mammals since my last update. I can't track bats separately anymore, but they had been at 100% automatic taxoboxes for a couple years now. WikiProject Protista is slowly being added to more articles; there has been an increase in the number of tagged protist articles with manual taxoboxes. Primates has one less article than it did last time; perhaps a taxon has been lumped and an article merged.
All projects are now over 50% automatic taxoboxes and the majority are now over 90%.
I have some detailed notes breaking remaining plant manual taxoboxes down by family at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. Less detailed notes at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress that break animals down by phylum, and insects and fishes by order. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)