![]() | Tree of Life Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
What's the story with the fossil range charts being added, as in Lizard and Therizinosaurus? I suppose it's a good idea, though it makes the boxes that much more cluttered... but at present, the diagram does not appear to correspond with the listed range, at least in my browser (Safari). For example, the green range highlight is under Paleogene for Therizinosaurus when it should be Cretaceous. Lizard range is Jurassic to recent, but the highlight only extends into the early part of the Cretaceous. Dinoguy2 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Example Taxobox Temporal range:
Triassic - Cretaceous | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Genus: | Rangea
|
Species: | Rangea fossilii
|
Is there any preferred way how to list synonyms? I.e., alphabetically or by date of publication? I have found myself doing either, and found each approach to be equally advantageous and disadvantageous. Depending on the specific taxon, either may be easier to maintain. Usually, an alphabetic list will be easier to read and maintain. But e.g. in Falcon, there have been so many preoccupied names and names that were later "fixed" believing they were preoccupied (but weren't) that there is no getting around a chronological listing. Dysmorodrepanis 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Marshall, Texas has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Okiefromokla• talk 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am currently working on the Lepidopterans, whose taxonomy presents a rank "series" between superfamily and family. It is not the same-named "series" in the botanical sense of the term, but a distinct and different rank. We need to have it added to the taxobox template... For the time being, I am using the variable "series" in my lepidopteran taxobox (knowing that the taxob appears at the wrong place) and waiting for something better. Oeropium 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am currently working on the genus Epidendrum of the plant family Orchidaceae, whose taxonomy presents a rank "subsection" between "section" and "species" (not "series"). For now, I will use "series" for "subsection" to avoid moving "section" to "subgenus." I await something better. Jay L09 ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Meantime, there is possible to add any rank like this, for example in Argnidae, but it will appear as unranked. Other possibility is to add anything with br tag, for example like this:
|sectio = [[Schistochila]]<br/>subsection [[Carinata]]
Even if there is no needed taxonomic rank yet, there can not be written different rank in taxobox. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be helpful to have a complete example of a Virus taxobox on the usage page. After all, they are quite different from plant and animal boxes. Rl ( talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
An IUCN representative contacted me, asking if I could make a minor change to Template:Taxobox so that "(IUCN Red List)" is shown instead of "(IUCN)" when conservation data comes from the IUCN Red List. In order to keep discussion together, please leave any comments at Template talk:Taxobox#IUCN Red List status. Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I almost exclusively work on animals (mammals) here and I don´t like this ugly pink box very much. I am always happy when I go back to the german wiki . How do you like this nice green-brown-grey box down here for example:-)
Asian Golden Cat | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | C. temminckii
|
Binomial name | |
Catopuma temminckii |
I dont think, it would collide with any other taxobox color.-- Altaileopard ( talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (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 |
Discussion seems to have stopped, so to rekindle the interest in this issue, I've just pulled the switch... Eugène van der Pijll ( talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that this problem is almost non-existent: there are 14 articles in wikipedia that have regnum incertae sedis: Pteridinium, Arkarua, Mawsonites, Charniodiscus, Yorgia, Hiemalora, Aspidella, Parvancorina, Bradgatia, Nimbia, Chondroplon, Swartpuntia, Trilobozoa, Picobiliphyte. I'll list some possible colors for these articles below (please add more options, if you have them). I suggest to wait a week to see if people like the new colour for the animal boxes, and to change the incertae sedis boxes when we're sure about that. -- Eugène van der Pijll ( talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
pink | Formerly used for Animalia |
---|---|
whitesmoke | Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis |
linen | Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis |
Any ideas why
Dinosaur is still pink? I see it as such on two computers, have refreshed the cache, and my PC is set up to delete cache and browsing history after a session anyway. It is linked to [[Animal]]ia and has no embedded color element.
J. Spencer (
talk)
13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
E0D0B0 | Previous incertae sedis colour |
---|---|
linen | Current incertae sedis colour |
F3E0E0 | Archaea colour, for comparison |
pink | Formerly used for Animalia, now free to be re-used? |
whitesmoke | Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis |
chartreuse | Perhaps this yellow colour? |
lemon | Or this one? |
These changes obvioiusly took place over a year ago, and I do not object to the new colors. However, has anyone coordinated these changes with other languages? I've been looking at other language articles, and the Animalia color seems to still be the old pink. I tested deleting the specified color pink, and the color does not change (i.e., the default color is set in the template). How do thse kinds of things coordinated across languages (or maybe they dont?). Donlammers ( talk) 08:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{Taxobox/TeleTaxo | name = Orca | status = LR/cd | status_ref = | image = Killerwhales jumping.jpg | image_width = 250px | image_caption = Transient Orcas near [[Unimak Island]], eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska | image2 = Orca_size.svg | image2_width = 250px | image2_caption = Size comparison against an average [[human]] | regnum = [[Animal]]ia | phylum = [[Chordate|Chordata]] | classis = [[Mammal]]ia | ordo = [[Cetacea]] | subordo = [[Odontoceti]] | familia = [[Delphinidae]] | genus = '''''Orcinus''''' | species = '''''O. orca''''' | binomial = ''Orcinus orca'' | binomial_authority = [[Carolus Linnaeus|Linnaeus]], 1758 | range_map = cetacea range map Orca.PNG | range_map_width = 250px | range_map_caption = Orca range (in blue) |subdivision=none |subdivision_ranks=Subdivisions |diversity_link=? |diversity=Does this need to be collapsible? |synonyms=Killer whale }}
I tried making a telescoping taxobox once (with hide/show bits) and failed,
Thanyakij, however, has succeeded, and it's being used on Thai Wikipedia. I think it's cool. I've copied the message from my talk page (which includes links to examples):
How about this on English Wikipedia? — Pengo 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Doing that reminded me - is there a point to the separate {{{binomial}}} parameter? What information does it contain that isn't already covered by {{{genus}}}, {{{species}}} and {{{species_authority}}}? Verisimilus T 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem of taxoboxes that omit the species parameter could be overcome - it would be trivial for a bot to enumerate the articles with a binomial parameter but no species parameter, and possibly even to fix them automatically. As far as I'm aware, the binomial parameter is indeed redundant, and I support the proposal to abandon it.
But if we're going to tackle this, we should be handling the "trinomial" argument too, since these are intrinsically related. As usual, the devil's in the details. :-( The required functionality would appear to be something like:
With plants, it is possible to publish a variety of a subspecies, in which case it is legitimate to write either "Genus species subsp. subspecies var. variety" or just "Genus species var. variety". I can't see any objection to the taxobox code mandating the shorter form.
I don't know what the requirements would be for other kingdoms - I think fungi and algae use the botanical code?
If this gets sorted out, there may be a case for revisiting Verisimilus' earlier proposal to automate some of the italicising. Hesperian 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{binomial|}}}| ! [[Binomial nomenclature|Binomial name]] {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''<span class="binomial">{{{binomial}}}</span>'''<br /><small>{{{binomial_authority|}}}</small>}} |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};" {{#if:{{{trinomial|}}}| ! [[Trinomial nomenclature|Trinomial name]] {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''{{{trinomial}}}'''<br /><small>{{{trinomial_authority|}}}</small>}} |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
{{taxobox binomial|R={{lc:{{{regnum|}}}}}|G={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{genus|}}}}}}}|sp={{lc:{{{species|}}}}}|f={{lc:{{{forma|}}}}}|var={{lc:{{{variety|}}}}}|ssp={{lc:{{{subspecies|}}}}}}}
Albatrosses | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | Diomedeidae
G.R. Gray, 1840
|
Type species | |
Diomedea exulans Linnaeus, 1758
| |
Genera | |
See list in text | |
Diversity | |
4 genera, 21 species | |
![]() | |
Synonyms | |
None. |
Posted that before... so as we have the nice example here now, I'll post it again... maybe now someone understands what I mean.
Wouldn't be better to have the following sequence of taxobox sections:
That would make for smoother and more logical reading I think. Because then, the type species would come immediately after the taxon for which it is the type species, and the diversity would come between the taxon's entire distribution and the taxon's subdivisions - the two taxobox items which really show this "diversity". Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to list the superfamily Apoidea above the Anthophila in the bee taxobox? Presently, I think the listing implies that Apoidea is included within Anthophila and is as such misleading. I tried playing around with "unranked_something" parameter, but nothing else than unranked_superfamilia works. -- Yerpo ( talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any benefit of an additional field to specify the circumscription reference like "circumscription_ref=Clarke, 2004 [1]" ? (See Uniramia, Bird etc.) Shyamal ( talk) 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that Category:Invalid conservation status is robustly populated with fossil organisms that have |status=fossil in their taxobox, would it be feasible (or even desirable, given that many don't have |fossil_range, particularly our numerous ammonite articles) to have a bot go through and remove that element, similar to what Eubot did when taxobox color was linked to kingdom? J. Spencer ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd be removing from view the only indication that the taxon is a fossil. How about instead, we simply change the taxobox code to tag fossils into Category:Taxoboxes needing a fossil range parameter instead of Category:Invalid conservation status. Hesperian 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The missing field in the taxobox is type_locality. Would it be possible to implement this?-- Wloveral ( talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The taxobox at Thermococcus litoralis is broken; however, I don't know if the edit that broke it is legitimate or not. Is this an appropriate classification? --- RockMFR 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the color of the taxobox is assigned automatically according to regnum, the color is not assigned automatically for any page on taxa belonging to the bacteria or archaea. Neither of these groups has been subdivided into kingdoms, and their pages do not list a value for regnum. To determine the color for prokaryotes, could the taxobox please check domain" for these taxa? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi All -
I was wondering whether anyone could suggest what kind of taxobox could/should be used for intergeneric hybrid animals? MidgleyDJ ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{ Biota}} for the display of in-line scientific names, with the same draft "species" microformat used by taxoboxes.
So far, it works only for vernacular, binominal, trinominal and genus names (example on template documentation), but I'll add a few other ranks soon ; and more complex processing for Foo bar ssp. boo and other such formats, later.
It allows wiki-linking, and the optional emboldening of vernacular names, and italicises scientific names automatically.
Comments welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
←If a template is written well, as I hope this one is, it should not dissuade an editor such as you describe from editing or creating pages. Consider this scenario:
Editors A & C do not need to know how the template works, or even of its existence. As to your latter point, this template not only aids the standardisation of display formats, but wraps the data in a microformat, making it more accessible to machines, and to user tools which allow it to be looked up on other sites, downloaded, aggregated, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Update:You're being represented in the deletion debate as expressing "the opinion that the template is pointless". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:Biota has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Conservation status - I think that there is discrepancy in notes about using conservation status. There is not valid IUCN red list category Secure in use. On the other hand there is written in Taxobox documentation not to use Not evaluated (NE) category. Not evaluated category with appropriate reference (with date) is much more usefull than a some unreferenced guess about a secure species. I would like to use Not evaluated category in Taxoboxes. -- Snek01 ( talk) 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Northern bluefin tuna is divided into two infra-specific taxa on the IUCN Red List: the Eastern Atlantic stock and the Western Atlantic stock. These two stocks have been assessed with two different levels of endangerment (Endangered for the Eastern stock, and Critically Endangered for the Western stock). Since it seems unnecessary to have two separate articles for these taxa, we're presented with the challenge of trying to figure out how to best represent these data in the taxobox. Currently, the entire Northern bluefin tuna population's status is listed by IUCN as 'data deficient', so in the spirit of wanting to present more information rather than less, it would be nice to have a method for presenting the conservation status of both stocks in one taxobox. Any ideas on how best to do this? Steamroller Assault ( talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The text perhaps needs to expand on what exactly should go and not go into the synonyms field. Perhaps this discussion on Talk:Black Drongo could help in improve the guideline. Thanks. Shyamal ( talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
See also the discussion at :
At this moment we stil use taxoboxes with code based on Linnean taxonomy. This poses a problem when the taxonomy has shifted into the direction of phylogenetic taxonomy, using cladistics, as it is the case in Gastropoda. It is becoming more and more difficult to express the exact relations of the taxa in our traditional taxoboxes. If you look at the taxobox in Bornella and at its code, you'll see how awkward it looks. Can someone re-write the code, so that we can use clades, unranked clades (or subclades) and "informal groups" (see : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) for the meaning of "informal groups"). Maybe it would be better if we could split taxobox usage into taxoboxes with the traditional Linnean taxonomy and taxoboxes using phylogenetic taxonomy for taxa above the rank of superfamily (replacing the ranks suborder, order, superorder and subclass), while using the traditional Linnaean approach for all taxa below the rank of superfamily. Any help appreciated. JoJan ( talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Task 1) What all information is needed to display in taxobox. There is still possible to display all infomation in taxobox (at least for gastropods). Information is possible to write down in rows:
| unranked_ordo = | unranked_ordo_authority = | unranked_familia = | unranked_familia_authority =
These few rows can display all possibilities for gastropods because there is no needed to write authority for two of them. Meantime there is necessary to write authority only for very few taxa. (see for example Pleurobranchidae which belongs to most complicated now.) Because there are no monotypic clades which contains mononotypic subclade. Meantime. Maybe there will be needed to write authority for three unranked taxa in the future and it is not possible now.
Are there any other taxa that primarilly uses taxonomy like this? For example, why there is no taxobox in the article asterids? (It is possible to write some.) Is there necessary to write other detailed information in Canellales instead of this?:
Kingdom: Plantae (unranked): Angiosperms (unranked): Magnoliids Order: Canellales
Task 2) How should the taxobox look like for a reader. Now it looks somethis like this (example Pleurobranchidae):
Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Heterobranchia informal group Opisthobranchia clade Nudipleura (unranked): subclade Pleurobranchomorpha Deshayes, 1832 Superfamily: Pleurobranchoidea Gray, 1827
I think that it should look something like this:
Class: Gastropoda Clade: Heterobranchia Informal group: Opisthobranchia Clade: Nudipleura Subclade: Pleurobranchomorpha Deshayes, 1832 Superfamily: Pleurobranchoidea Gray, 1827
I think, the word (unranked) is not necessary. Am I right, that every clade is unranked? I hope that it can be done automatically, that such special words (clade, subclade, informal group, group) will be displayed on the left side of the taxobox.
Task 3) How should the code look like to an editor. This is the most complicated and it depends at two previous tasks. Now the code is like this:
| classis = [[Gastropoda]] | subclassis = | superordo = | ordo = | subordo = | subclassis = | unranked_ordo = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Nudipleura]] | unranked_ordo_authority = | superordo = | ordo = | subordo = | infraordo = | unranked_familia = subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]''' | unranked_familia_authority = [[Deshayes]], 1832 | superfamilia = '''[[Pleurobranchoidea]]''' | superfamilia_authority = Gray, 1827
This code is quite complicated sometimes even for advanced wikipedians. There is used tag BR, but I am not sure, how to improve it. The only feature is, that we know, where will be rows placed:
We can theoretically make few new rows for taxobox: unranked_1 = , unranked_2 = , unranked_3 = , unranked_4 = , ... unranked_10 = . But if so, then we will lost the feature, that we know, where it will appear.
There is only and example how not to do it: We will choose any rank what we want (we know its position) and if we write a word clade, then that rank will display as a clade.
| classis = [[Gastropoda]] | subclassis = clade [[Heterobranchia]] | superordo = informal group [[Opisthobranchia]] | ordo = clade [[Nudipleura]] | subordo = | subclassis = | unranked_ordo = | unranked_ordo_authority = | superordo = | ordo = | subordo = | infraordo = | unranked_familia = subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]''' | unranked_familia_authority = [[Deshayes]], 1832 | superfamilia = '''[[Pleurobranchoidea]]''' | superfamilia_authority = Gray, 1827
This code of example above is very misleading. Although it would be possible to display it in a good way similar as I suggested in task 2.
I am not sure what exactly JoJan suggested. JoJan, did you suggested to use some new template to be placed inside the taxobox? If so, how exactly it should appear? Are there any templates for phylogenic taxonomy already in use? If so, such templates (or any other solution) have to be easy to use also. I do not know how to solve the task three. -- Snek01 ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Class: Gastropoda Clade: Heterobranchia Informal group: Opisthobranchia Clade: Nudipleura Subclade: Pleurobranchomorpha Deshayes, 1832 Superfamily: Pleurobranchoidea Gray, 1827
| unranked_familia = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Nudipleura]]<br/> subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''
But we still do not know how the code should be like. My opinion is that this code acceptable, because I do not know a better one. This code is applicable for all existing gastropods. We can only change word "unranked_familia" with something else, but it will not help much and I do not know how to replace BR tag with something better. Suggestions how to improved the code are welcomed.
Or do you suggest a code like this? (note that there are repeating rows with a word "clade")
| clade = [[Heterobranchia]] | informal_group = [[Opisthobranchia]] | clade = [[Nudipleura]] | subclade = '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''
It seems very simple, but it would demand to place it exactly in the correct place where it should display. But I am not sure if it is compatible with the actual philosophy way how the modern template of taxobox is written. I would like to hear an opinion from template makers too. -- Snek01 ( talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kingdom: Plantae (unranked)*: Angiosperms (unranked)*: Magnoliids Order: Canellales
Class: Gastropoda Suborder*: Nudibranchia Superfamily: Tritonioidea Family: Bornellidae
Am I right to say the following statement is incorrect: Common names of higher taxa are always given in sentence case and in the plural (e.g. Marine hatchetfishes). If so the sentence should be removed. I also think something should be mentioned about the ability for article titles to be italicized when the "name =" field is removed. This is useful for species + genera without a common name. Jack ( talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The main Wikipedia SOP has changed, and in fact the "300px" referral to the MoS is false.
By now, almost every infobox outside ToL has been using fixed-width images for some time now, except for emblems, coats-of-arms and other simple graphic designs. Photos and maps in leading infoboxes are generally set to around 250px fixed-width.
It was argued that "users can set their default thumb width, hence the lead image needs no size parameter". But this is vapid, since only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers have an user account - most will have the default thumb with, which in taxoboxes a) looks ugly as hell (due to taxobox width > default thumb width) and b) for most images reduces quality to a point where too little detail can be discerned to fulfill the purpose of a lead image.
Judging from the number of WP editor accounts and the Alexa rating of WP, it seems that less than 10% (perhaps as few as 2-4%) of Wikipedia readers can change thumbnail display size. The rest are stuck with 180px thumbnails.
Thus, to agree with the overall Wikipedia MoS and its prevailing interpretation for article lead infoboxes, the policy should be changed to:
It is also advisable - if you have tweaked your user account's display settings extensively - to view your contributions without being logged in. It is nice if the article looks very great under an editor's particular settings, but if 9 in 10 Wikipedia readers get a layout that sucks, it fails the purpose of Wikipedia.
Note that in-text images should still (almost) never have a size parameter, except when it otherwise breaks or messes up the layout, or for images containing lots of detail crucially relevant to the article. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's possible to italicise titles of articles but there is no mention of how to do this on this page. I think that these 4 methods cover all eventualities:
This is also posted here. Should this manual be changed to take account of this? I posted at WP:MOS but this is probably a better place thinking about it. Smartse ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the basionym of a species presented separately from all its other synonyms... What do you think ? Phn229 ( talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Could a field be added for including the translation of the scientific name? I think that it would help a lot of people! Craig Pemberton ( talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Those of you using the Operator add-on in Firefox might like to know that there is an updated script to read the 'Species' microformat emitted by the Taxobox. More exciting developments soon! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Your input is requested in a final round of testing at [[Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Ready_to_release.3F|]]. We are looking for volunteers to check for problems with the code before it is released. Thanks! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Tree of Life Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
What's the story with the fossil range charts being added, as in Lizard and Therizinosaurus? I suppose it's a good idea, though it makes the boxes that much more cluttered... but at present, the diagram does not appear to correspond with the listed range, at least in my browser (Safari). For example, the green range highlight is under Paleogene for Therizinosaurus when it should be Cretaceous. Lizard range is Jurassic to recent, but the highlight only extends into the early part of the Cretaceous. Dinoguy2 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Example Taxobox Temporal range:
Triassic - Cretaceous | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Genus: | Rangea
|
Species: | Rangea fossilii
|
Is there any preferred way how to list synonyms? I.e., alphabetically or by date of publication? I have found myself doing either, and found each approach to be equally advantageous and disadvantageous. Depending on the specific taxon, either may be easier to maintain. Usually, an alphabetic list will be easier to read and maintain. But e.g. in Falcon, there have been so many preoccupied names and names that were later "fixed" believing they were preoccupied (but weren't) that there is no getting around a chronological listing. Dysmorodrepanis 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Marshall, Texas has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Okiefromokla• talk 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am currently working on the Lepidopterans, whose taxonomy presents a rank "series" between superfamily and family. It is not the same-named "series" in the botanical sense of the term, but a distinct and different rank. We need to have it added to the taxobox template... For the time being, I am using the variable "series" in my lepidopteran taxobox (knowing that the taxob appears at the wrong place) and waiting for something better. Oeropium 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am currently working on the genus Epidendrum of the plant family Orchidaceae, whose taxonomy presents a rank "subsection" between "section" and "species" (not "series"). For now, I will use "series" for "subsection" to avoid moving "section" to "subgenus." I await something better. Jay L09 ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Meantime, there is possible to add any rank like this, for example in Argnidae, but it will appear as unranked. Other possibility is to add anything with br tag, for example like this:
|sectio = [[Schistochila]]<br/>subsection [[Carinata]]
Even if there is no needed taxonomic rank yet, there can not be written different rank in taxobox. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be helpful to have a complete example of a Virus taxobox on the usage page. After all, they are quite different from plant and animal boxes. Rl ( talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
An IUCN representative contacted me, asking if I could make a minor change to Template:Taxobox so that "(IUCN Red List)" is shown instead of "(IUCN)" when conservation data comes from the IUCN Red List. In order to keep discussion together, please leave any comments at Template talk:Taxobox#IUCN Red List status. Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I almost exclusively work on animals (mammals) here and I don´t like this ugly pink box very much. I am always happy when I go back to the german wiki . How do you like this nice green-brown-grey box down here for example:-)
Asian Golden Cat | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | C. temminckii
|
Binomial name | |
Catopuma temminckii |
I dont think, it would collide with any other taxobox color.-- Altaileopard ( talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (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 |
Discussion seems to have stopped, so to rekindle the interest in this issue, I've just pulled the switch... Eugène van der Pijll ( talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that this problem is almost non-existent: there are 14 articles in wikipedia that have regnum incertae sedis: Pteridinium, Arkarua, Mawsonites, Charniodiscus, Yorgia, Hiemalora, Aspidella, Parvancorina, Bradgatia, Nimbia, Chondroplon, Swartpuntia, Trilobozoa, Picobiliphyte. I'll list some possible colors for these articles below (please add more options, if you have them). I suggest to wait a week to see if people like the new colour for the animal boxes, and to change the incertae sedis boxes when we're sure about that. -- Eugène van der Pijll ( talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
pink | Formerly used for Animalia |
---|---|
whitesmoke | Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis |
linen | Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis |
Any ideas why
Dinosaur is still pink? I see it as such on two computers, have refreshed the cache, and my PC is set up to delete cache and browsing history after a session anyway. It is linked to [[Animal]]ia and has no embedded color element.
J. Spencer (
talk)
13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
E0D0B0 | Previous incertae sedis colour |
---|---|
linen | Current incertae sedis colour |
F3E0E0 | Archaea colour, for comparison |
pink | Formerly used for Animalia, now free to be re-used? |
whitesmoke | Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis |
chartreuse | Perhaps this yellow colour? |
lemon | Or this one? |
These changes obvioiusly took place over a year ago, and I do not object to the new colors. However, has anyone coordinated these changes with other languages? I've been looking at other language articles, and the Animalia color seems to still be the old pink. I tested deleting the specified color pink, and the color does not change (i.e., the default color is set in the template). How do thse kinds of things coordinated across languages (or maybe they dont?). Donlammers ( talk) 08:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{Taxobox/TeleTaxo | name = Orca | status = LR/cd | status_ref = | image = Killerwhales jumping.jpg | image_width = 250px | image_caption = Transient Orcas near [[Unimak Island]], eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska | image2 = Orca_size.svg | image2_width = 250px | image2_caption = Size comparison against an average [[human]] | regnum = [[Animal]]ia | phylum = [[Chordate|Chordata]] | classis = [[Mammal]]ia | ordo = [[Cetacea]] | subordo = [[Odontoceti]] | familia = [[Delphinidae]] | genus = '''''Orcinus''''' | species = '''''O. orca''''' | binomial = ''Orcinus orca'' | binomial_authority = [[Carolus Linnaeus|Linnaeus]], 1758 | range_map = cetacea range map Orca.PNG | range_map_width = 250px | range_map_caption = Orca range (in blue) |subdivision=none |subdivision_ranks=Subdivisions |diversity_link=? |diversity=Does this need to be collapsible? |synonyms=Killer whale }}
I tried making a telescoping taxobox once (with hide/show bits) and failed,
Thanyakij, however, has succeeded, and it's being used on Thai Wikipedia. I think it's cool. I've copied the message from my talk page (which includes links to examples):
How about this on English Wikipedia? — Pengo 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Doing that reminded me - is there a point to the separate {{{binomial}}} parameter? What information does it contain that isn't already covered by {{{genus}}}, {{{species}}} and {{{species_authority}}}? Verisimilus T 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem of taxoboxes that omit the species parameter could be overcome - it would be trivial for a bot to enumerate the articles with a binomial parameter but no species parameter, and possibly even to fix them automatically. As far as I'm aware, the binomial parameter is indeed redundant, and I support the proposal to abandon it.
But if we're going to tackle this, we should be handling the "trinomial" argument too, since these are intrinsically related. As usual, the devil's in the details. :-( The required functionality would appear to be something like:
With plants, it is possible to publish a variety of a subspecies, in which case it is legitimate to write either "Genus species subsp. subspecies var. variety" or just "Genus species var. variety". I can't see any objection to the taxobox code mandating the shorter form.
I don't know what the requirements would be for other kingdoms - I think fungi and algae use the botanical code?
If this gets sorted out, there may be a case for revisiting Verisimilus' earlier proposal to automate some of the italicising. Hesperian 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{binomial|}}}| ! [[Binomial nomenclature|Binomial name]] {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''<span class="binomial">{{{binomial}}}</span>'''<br /><small>{{{binomial_authority|}}}</small>}} |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};" {{#if:{{{trinomial|}}}| ! [[Trinomial nomenclature|Trinomial name]] {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''{{{trinomial}}}'''<br /><small>{{{trinomial_authority|}}}</small>}} |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
{{taxobox binomial|R={{lc:{{{regnum|}}}}}|G={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{genus|}}}}}}}|sp={{lc:{{{species|}}}}}|f={{lc:{{{forma|}}}}}|var={{lc:{{{variety|}}}}}|ssp={{lc:{{{subspecies|}}}}}}}
Albatrosses | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | Diomedeidae
G.R. Gray, 1840
|
Type species | |
Diomedea exulans Linnaeus, 1758
| |
Genera | |
See list in text | |
Diversity | |
4 genera, 21 species | |
![]() | |
Synonyms | |
None. |
Posted that before... so as we have the nice example here now, I'll post it again... maybe now someone understands what I mean.
Wouldn't be better to have the following sequence of taxobox sections:
That would make for smoother and more logical reading I think. Because then, the type species would come immediately after the taxon for which it is the type species, and the diversity would come between the taxon's entire distribution and the taxon's subdivisions - the two taxobox items which really show this "diversity". Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to list the superfamily Apoidea above the Anthophila in the bee taxobox? Presently, I think the listing implies that Apoidea is included within Anthophila and is as such misleading. I tried playing around with "unranked_something" parameter, but nothing else than unranked_superfamilia works. -- Yerpo ( talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any benefit of an additional field to specify the circumscription reference like "circumscription_ref=Clarke, 2004 [1]" ? (See Uniramia, Bird etc.) Shyamal ( talk) 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that Category:Invalid conservation status is robustly populated with fossil organisms that have |status=fossil in their taxobox, would it be feasible (or even desirable, given that many don't have |fossil_range, particularly our numerous ammonite articles) to have a bot go through and remove that element, similar to what Eubot did when taxobox color was linked to kingdom? J. Spencer ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd be removing from view the only indication that the taxon is a fossil. How about instead, we simply change the taxobox code to tag fossils into Category:Taxoboxes needing a fossil range parameter instead of Category:Invalid conservation status. Hesperian 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The missing field in the taxobox is type_locality. Would it be possible to implement this?-- Wloveral ( talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The taxobox at Thermococcus litoralis is broken; however, I don't know if the edit that broke it is legitimate or not. Is this an appropriate classification? --- RockMFR 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the color of the taxobox is assigned automatically according to regnum, the color is not assigned automatically for any page on taxa belonging to the bacteria or archaea. Neither of these groups has been subdivided into kingdoms, and their pages do not list a value for regnum. To determine the color for prokaryotes, could the taxobox please check domain" for these taxa? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi All -
I was wondering whether anyone could suggest what kind of taxobox could/should be used for intergeneric hybrid animals? MidgleyDJ ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{ Biota}} for the display of in-line scientific names, with the same draft "species" microformat used by taxoboxes.
So far, it works only for vernacular, binominal, trinominal and genus names (example on template documentation), but I'll add a few other ranks soon ; and more complex processing for Foo bar ssp. boo and other such formats, later.
It allows wiki-linking, and the optional emboldening of vernacular names, and italicises scientific names automatically.
Comments welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
←If a template is written well, as I hope this one is, it should not dissuade an editor such as you describe from editing or creating pages. Consider this scenario:
Editors A & C do not need to know how the template works, or even of its existence. As to your latter point, this template not only aids the standardisation of display formats, but wraps the data in a microformat, making it more accessible to machines, and to user tools which allow it to be looked up on other sites, downloaded, aggregated, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Update:You're being represented in the deletion debate as expressing "the opinion that the template is pointless". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:Biota has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Conservation status - I think that there is discrepancy in notes about using conservation status. There is not valid IUCN red list category Secure in use. On the other hand there is written in Taxobox documentation not to use Not evaluated (NE) category. Not evaluated category with appropriate reference (with date) is much more usefull than a some unreferenced guess about a secure species. I would like to use Not evaluated category in Taxoboxes. -- Snek01 ( talk) 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Northern bluefin tuna is divided into two infra-specific taxa on the IUCN Red List: the Eastern Atlantic stock and the Western Atlantic stock. These two stocks have been assessed with two different levels of endangerment (Endangered for the Eastern stock, and Critically Endangered for the Western stock). Since it seems unnecessary to have two separate articles for these taxa, we're presented with the challenge of trying to figure out how to best represent these data in the taxobox. Currently, the entire Northern bluefin tuna population's status is listed by IUCN as 'data deficient', so in the spirit of wanting to present more information rather than less, it would be nice to have a method for presenting the conservation status of both stocks in one taxobox. Any ideas on how best to do this? Steamroller Assault ( talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The text perhaps needs to expand on what exactly should go and not go into the synonyms field. Perhaps this discussion on Talk:Black Drongo could help in improve the guideline. Thanks. Shyamal ( talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
See also the discussion at :
At this moment we stil use taxoboxes with code based on Linnean taxonomy. This poses a problem when the taxonomy has shifted into the direction of phylogenetic taxonomy, using cladistics, as it is the case in Gastropoda. It is becoming more and more difficult to express the exact relations of the taxa in our traditional taxoboxes. If you look at the taxobox in Bornella and at its code, you'll see how awkward it looks. Can someone re-write the code, so that we can use clades, unranked clades (or subclades) and "informal groups" (see : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) for the meaning of "informal groups"). Maybe it would be better if we could split taxobox usage into taxoboxes with the traditional Linnean taxonomy and taxoboxes using phylogenetic taxonomy for taxa above the rank of superfamily (replacing the ranks suborder, order, superorder and subclass), while using the traditional Linnaean approach for all taxa below the rank of superfamily. Any help appreciated. JoJan ( talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Task 1) What all information is needed to display in taxobox. There is still possible to display all infomation in taxobox (at least for gastropods). Information is possible to write down in rows:
| unranked_ordo = | unranked_ordo_authority = | unranked_familia = | unranked_familia_authority =
These few rows can display all possibilities for gastropods because there is no needed to write authority for two of them. Meantime there is necessary to write authority only for very few taxa. (see for example Pleurobranchidae which belongs to most complicated now.) Because there are no monotypic clades which contains mononotypic subclade. Meantime. Maybe there will be needed to write authority for three unranked taxa in the future and it is not possible now.
Are there any other taxa that primarilly uses taxonomy like this? For example, why there is no taxobox in the article asterids? (It is possible to write some.) Is there necessary to write other detailed information in Canellales instead of this?:
Kingdom: Plantae (unranked): Angiosperms (unranked): Magnoliids Order: Canellales
Task 2) How should the taxobox look like for a reader. Now it looks somethis like this (example Pleurobranchidae):
Class: Gastropoda (unranked): clade Heterobranchia informal group Opisthobranchia clade Nudipleura (unranked): subclade Pleurobranchomorpha Deshayes, 1832 Superfamily: Pleurobranchoidea Gray, 1827
I think that it should look something like this:
Class: Gastropoda Clade: Heterobranchia Informal group: Opisthobranchia Clade: Nudipleura Subclade: Pleurobranchomorpha Deshayes, 1832 Superfamily: Pleurobranchoidea Gray, 1827
I think, the word (unranked) is not necessary. Am I right, that every clade is unranked? I hope that it can be done automatically, that such special words (clade, subclade, informal group, group) will be displayed on the left side of the taxobox.
Task 3) How should the code look like to an editor. This is the most complicated and it depends at two previous tasks. Now the code is like this:
| classis = [[Gastropoda]] | subclassis = | superordo = | ordo = | subordo = | subclassis = | unranked_ordo = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Nudipleura]] | unranked_ordo_authority = | superordo = | ordo = | subordo = | infraordo = | unranked_familia = subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]''' | unranked_familia_authority = [[Deshayes]], 1832 | superfamilia = '''[[Pleurobranchoidea]]''' | superfamilia_authority = Gray, 1827
This code is quite complicated sometimes even for advanced wikipedians. There is used tag BR, but I am not sure, how to improve it. The only feature is, that we know, where will be rows placed:
We can theoretically make few new rows for taxobox: unranked_1 = , unranked_2 = , unranked_3 = , unranked_4 = , ... unranked_10 = . But if so, then we will lost the feature, that we know, where it will appear.
There is only and example how not to do it: We will choose any rank what we want (we know its position) and if we write a word clade, then that rank will display as a clade.
| classis = [[Gastropoda]] | subclassis = clade [[Heterobranchia]] | superordo = informal group [[Opisthobranchia]] | ordo = clade [[Nudipleura]] | subordo = | subclassis = | unranked_ordo = | unranked_ordo_authority = | superordo = | ordo = | subordo = | infraordo = | unranked_familia = subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]''' | unranked_familia_authority = [[Deshayes]], 1832 | superfamilia = '''[[Pleurobranchoidea]]''' | superfamilia_authority = Gray, 1827
This code of example above is very misleading. Although it would be possible to display it in a good way similar as I suggested in task 2.
I am not sure what exactly JoJan suggested. JoJan, did you suggested to use some new template to be placed inside the taxobox? If so, how exactly it should appear? Are there any templates for phylogenic taxonomy already in use? If so, such templates (or any other solution) have to be easy to use also. I do not know how to solve the task three. -- Snek01 ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Class: Gastropoda Clade: Heterobranchia Informal group: Opisthobranchia Clade: Nudipleura Subclade: Pleurobranchomorpha Deshayes, 1832 Superfamily: Pleurobranchoidea Gray, 1827
| unranked_familia = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Nudipleura]]<br/> subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''
But we still do not know how the code should be like. My opinion is that this code acceptable, because I do not know a better one. This code is applicable for all existing gastropods. We can only change word "unranked_familia" with something else, but it will not help much and I do not know how to replace BR tag with something better. Suggestions how to improved the code are welcomed.
Or do you suggest a code like this? (note that there are repeating rows with a word "clade")
| clade = [[Heterobranchia]] | informal_group = [[Opisthobranchia]] | clade = [[Nudipleura]] | subclade = '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''
It seems very simple, but it would demand to place it exactly in the correct place where it should display. But I am not sure if it is compatible with the actual philosophy way how the modern template of taxobox is written. I would like to hear an opinion from template makers too. -- Snek01 ( talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kingdom: Plantae (unranked)*: Angiosperms (unranked)*: Magnoliids Order: Canellales
Class: Gastropoda Suborder*: Nudibranchia Superfamily: Tritonioidea Family: Bornellidae
Am I right to say the following statement is incorrect: Common names of higher taxa are always given in sentence case and in the plural (e.g. Marine hatchetfishes). If so the sentence should be removed. I also think something should be mentioned about the ability for article titles to be italicized when the "name =" field is removed. This is useful for species + genera without a common name. Jack ( talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The main Wikipedia SOP has changed, and in fact the "300px" referral to the MoS is false.
By now, almost every infobox outside ToL has been using fixed-width images for some time now, except for emblems, coats-of-arms and other simple graphic designs. Photos and maps in leading infoboxes are generally set to around 250px fixed-width.
It was argued that "users can set their default thumb width, hence the lead image needs no size parameter". But this is vapid, since only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers have an user account - most will have the default thumb with, which in taxoboxes a) looks ugly as hell (due to taxobox width > default thumb width) and b) for most images reduces quality to a point where too little detail can be discerned to fulfill the purpose of a lead image.
Judging from the number of WP editor accounts and the Alexa rating of WP, it seems that less than 10% (perhaps as few as 2-4%) of Wikipedia readers can change thumbnail display size. The rest are stuck with 180px thumbnails.
Thus, to agree with the overall Wikipedia MoS and its prevailing interpretation for article lead infoboxes, the policy should be changed to:
It is also advisable - if you have tweaked your user account's display settings extensively - to view your contributions without being logged in. It is nice if the article looks very great under an editor's particular settings, but if 9 in 10 Wikipedia readers get a layout that sucks, it fails the purpose of Wikipedia.
Note that in-text images should still (almost) never have a size parameter, except when it otherwise breaks or messes up the layout, or for images containing lots of detail crucially relevant to the article. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's possible to italicise titles of articles but there is no mention of how to do this on this page. I think that these 4 methods cover all eventualities:
This is also posted here. Should this manual be changed to take account of this? I posted at WP:MOS but this is probably a better place thinking about it. Smartse ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the basionym of a species presented separately from all its other synonyms... What do you think ? Phn229 ( talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Could a field be added for including the translation of the scientific name? I think that it would help a lot of people! Craig Pemberton ( talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Those of you using the Operator add-on in Firefox might like to know that there is an updated script to read the 'Species' microformat emitted by the Taxobox. More exciting developments soon! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Your input is requested in a final round of testing at [[Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Ready_to_release.3F|]]. We are looking for volunteers to check for problems with the code before it is released. Thanks! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)