Template talk:Automatic taxobox

This talkpage has been used for general discussion of issues with the automated taxobox system as a whole – taxobox templates like Speciesbox or this one, taxonomy templates like Template:Taxonomy/Aves, or the design and coding of the system. It is suggested that these should now be discussed at WT:Automated taxobox system, and this page reserved for specific problems with this template.

Controversial higher taxonomy
I'm looking to start a series of articles on fossil Odonate genera from the Okanagan Highlands, but there is a problem. When described in 2021 the genera were placed into a newly defined suborder "Cephalozygoptera", based on head morphology detail. The erection of the suborder was quickly questioned by another paleoentomologist, who treated the name as a jr synonym of Zygoptera. There was a short series of papers from both groups advocating their positions, and now the two authors are using their preferred taxonomies, and noone else has waded in.

Is there a way to format for controversal higher taxonomy in the automatic taxoboxes?-- Kev min  § 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Kev min  § 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Odonata Central doesn't have anything to say about it (their website is down at the moment)? If displaying "Zygoptera (?)" seem OK to you, you could follow the procedure here. Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Odonata Central does not encompass fossil taxa at all, and as such does not take positions on the complex higher phylogeny that the fossil record entails. As it stands, we have to suborders with equal use, and no databases of reliable nature that cover the taxa.-- Kev  min  § 18:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I found this to be a major problem with prehistoric taxa of disputed/unresolved affiliation. The template, as is, is simply far too rigorous for taxonomy (which is necessarily flexible); there needs to be some way to accomodate for taxonomic uncertainty. Many articles (especially Mesozoic amniotes, for which there are abundant phylogenetic analyses but much disagreement still) at present give demonstrably false information. It is something of a let-down to read through one of our excellent dinosaur articles and only way down realize that the taxobox is, once again, giving misinformation (and for professional researchers who use Wikipedia as a quick-reference/literature index - i.e. basically everyone these days -, it is positively annoying.) Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If displaying "(?)" after a taxon name isn't sufficient, then use a manual taxobox (i.e. ) where you can enter text more freely. The automated taxobox system is meant for settled taxonomic hierarchies. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Candidatus taxa
Ran into this recently... I see some variance in how to handle these taxa. Very few are using the automated system. I started converting one... I ran into the family first, Methylomirabilaceae, which used plain text so I automated it as such, but the linked species Methylomirabilis oxyfera that isn't yet automated uses quoted text. What is the correct way to handle these? I was thinking of trashing and replacing everything above the species as incertae sedis, but given that the full hierarchy is proposed, that might be overkill. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's probably worth starting a thread at TOL to figure out what to do with Candidatus taxa in general. There are a lot of articles on 'Candidatus taxa that don't indicate that status in any way in the article. Should titles include Candidatus? How should the names be formatted (quotes, italics)? There are only two taxonomy templates with Candidatus: Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Phytoplasma and Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Savagella. Plantdrew (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll move this convo there.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)