Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 4

Taxonomy maintenance
A perceived weakness in the current template is the difficulty of editing a taxonomy whilst it exists.

This could be considered a benefit insofar as it discourages vandalism and ensures that only carefully-considered changes are made; however, it also distances casual users from the process.

Assuming therefore that the editing process should be as simple as possible, I wonder the best way to assist would-be editors.

My current thinking is that an "edit" link could be included somewhere in the taxobox, taking the user to a toolserver page that takes them through the editing process.

An alternative would be to have a small edit link/icon beside each rank, although this would be somewhat cluttersome.

Ideas are welcome.

Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How about something like this:
 * Animalia
 * Chordata
 * Aves
 * ...etc...
 * Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about that too, but dismissed the idea because it presents clickable links users might follow expecting to get more information on that rank and are instead taken to a template editing screen. I think such an explicit link would also encourage more vandalism. I think a small edit link as Martin suggested would be best. All navbox templates at the bottom of articles have the little links for view, edit, and discuss. Would it most intuitive to put the edit link next to "Scientific classification"? Just as long as it doesn't interrupt the few existing cases that use, e.g. Oryzomys anoblepas. Rkitko (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, and the target page of this unintrusive link is where we could implement a sort of taxobox that displays all the taxa, even the hidden ones, with an edit link for each taxon. Of course, the target page would need to be a toolserver page of some sort. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll submit a bot request and work on a toolserver page when I next get some coding time. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  16:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Auto color not controlled in "conservation status" section?
E.g., in a plant article with a conservation status, the color should be lightgreen, not the Animalia brown. See Levenhookia octomaculata. Might be worth checking other section, too. Rkitko (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Weiiiiird. I'll go check this out. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why won't divisio show on Welwitschia?
The division Gnetophyta doesn't show up in the automatic taxobox on the Welwitschia article (but is linked in the tree via Template:Taxonomy/Gnetopsida). It should. Any idea why? It does, however, show up at Gnetophyta, which serves as the article for Gnetopsida as well, because I set the. Divisio is a major rank in botany and should always display without setting ; there's also zoodivisio, which is, I think (?) a minor rank in zoology, which normally shouldn't display. Is this correctly coded in the template? We shouldn't have to set  at every divisio Template:Taxonomy/ page. Rkitko (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct; zoology recognizes division as an intermediate taxon. If what you say is true about zoodivisio being available, I'd think that should be relatively implementable. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

zoodivision should read "Division"
I'm not finding the place where I can change the string displayed for "zoodivision" at the moment. Anyone know? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's at template:Anglicise rank (fixed here). Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  16:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Breaks on empty field
If I close my Automatic taxobox with an empty field, ie |}}, then it doesn't work. People write it this way a lot for some reason, and Taxobox works if you do it, and it's not simple to debug this, so it's probably worth looking at after the mysterious blank-row-with-italictitle-bug. Thanks; this is a glorious attack on duplicated data. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that, too. In plants, I know a lot of the empty fields came from taxobox conversion to APG III. The series of templates User:Hesperian and I were using placed an empty field at the bottom for some reason. I just try to remember it and remove it when converting to the automatic taxobox. Rkitko (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed it; let me know if not. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities?
Maybe it is my ignorance, but I just implemented the automatic taxobox for Drosophila. What went missing is the genus authority. Did I miss something? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since rank is determined by the Template:Taxonomy/page, all you have to do is drop the  from   and write  . If you ever have a monotypic taxon that also needs an authority for its parent taxon, use  . See the automatic taxobox I just created at Welwitschia for an example of several parent monotypic taxa. Rkitko (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
I made this, Taxonomy/Fabidae, which seems to work, but then it occurred to me that this is going to make things inconsistent; should one or the other be picked in all cases and any redirects modified so they display an error? If so can they be made to display an appropriate error automatically? That might be a good way to let editors know exactly what to do. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this will cause a problem or any inconsistency (at least, not that is visible to users). Perhaps you could elaborate for me?  Thanks. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm – I suppose you're right, it won't be visible to users – if taxonomy/Oxalidales says its parent is Fabidae then Oxalidales will just say "clade: Eurosids I", won't it? Nevermind! Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to the fact that many of the plant taxa are being represented by their common name rather than by their formal scientific name. I've considered this myself, but I think the plant people are the ones to consult here. I'm using WikiSpecies as my guide as I create the templates, and it would seem the English common name of the upper level plant taxa appears thousands of times more often in WikiSpecies than the formal scientific name. Perhaps now would be a good time to consult them? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No – I don't think that's what I mean. Maybe. I'm not talking about "whales" vs. "cetacea," I'm talking about "eurosids I" vs "fabids," which according to Rosids are the same thing. (I wouldn't call either "common names" but I have no idea what I'm talking about.) Can you give an example of common name used in lieu of formal name on wikispecies? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eurosids I is exactly what I meant by "common name". Okay, maybe it's not "common" like "whale", but it sure doesn't look very formal. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, then maybe that is what I meant but just didn't know it. On a related note, should we go crazy adding every clade we can get our hands on? Elephantidae->Elephantoidae->Elephantida->Elephantimorpha->Proboscidea->etc ? It seems like if the idea is to build a comprehensive tree or whatever, then we should, but if it is just to build useful taxoboxes then this might be seen as clutter? (I'm no expert here, so I may be misstating things.) ErikHaugen (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagined that any clade that possessed its own article would probably be worth adding. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to leave out clades, so long as they are monophyletic. After all, this is an encyclopedia. The controversial and poly-/paraphyletic taxa can be worked out by the appropriate WikiProject; for example, WikiProject Reptiles and Amphibians requested we use the outdated Reptilia instead of the new Sauropsida, which I'm fine with. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But on the other hand, there's probably no point in including clades that will never be displayed? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, though it makes it easiest to adopt new scientific advances in taxonomy when the taxonomies are complete. I see no real argument against using all the levels, so I'll continue to do them as such. After all, the intermediate taxa only display under the rare circumstance that they are intermediate between a taxon and its lowest major taxon parent, so I don't think there's any "clutter" as you put it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My worry was just that too many layers will produce more taxonomy-too-long problems. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  04:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. We can handle those on an individual basis at this point. I've not run into any problems lately with long taxonomies; that's not to say it won't happen, but when it does we can evaluate which taxa should be eliminated. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Monotypic genera
I have been trying to get the Automatic taxobox at Schistomerus to show genus, species and binomial parameters with out any luck. the genus is monotypic and general practice that I know of is to have all three parameters filled. I cant, however find any information or how/if this is possible. -- Kev min  § 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been using Tyrannosaurus as a model this whole time; are you going for a different look? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally format along the lines of Koala. Sequoia sempervirens, and Columbian Mammoth. -- Kev min  § 19:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those are monotypic genera. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * People seem to like it as Tyrannosaurus has it, see this. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Add the parameters   code to display the taxonomy of the species instead of the genus, and the   to force the parent of the genus to display. (You can increase the number to display more ranks if needed.) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this case needs the display_taxa field, but it seems the taxon field is the key here for this kind of thing. Thanks for your work on this Bob! How is it now Kevmin? ErikHaugen (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob! -- Kev min  § 19:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; after creating hundreds of these the past month, you get to know the tricks of the trade. ;) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Upper level plant taxa
Members of WP:WikiProject Plants have been notified of the discussion below and have been invited to partake

In setting up the taxonomy template database, we've come across a strange paradox-- several of the upper level plant taxa are frequently (but not always) listed as common names in the taxoboxes instead of as Latin names, e.g. "Angiosperms", "Eurosids I" and "II", and "Magnoliids". Also, at WikiSpecies, the common names seem to be highly preferred for upper level plant taxa. When using the automatic taxobox template, how should these taxa be displayed? Common name? Latin? Does it depend on the usage, and if so, what's the general rule of thumb? Please fill us in. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Common names are not used in taxoboxes. Can you link to an example? It is probably an article that needs edited. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

These names, "Eurosids I," etc., are not common names, nor are they Latin, that I know of, they are the correct technical names for the clades described. They should be displayed as they are in the taxoboxes. Maybe one of the plant editors understands your question better. As I see them used, they are used correctly in the existing taxoboxes. The taxoboxes that don't have these unranked clades containing the orders or families, are simply older taxoboxes that have not been updated. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Taxonomists of the angiosperms have set a fine example to other taxonomists by putting their heads together, forming a working group, and publishing a regularly revised taxonomy that represents as much as possible modern consensus understanding of angiosperm taxonomy. The latest such taxonomy is APG III. It is utterly mainstream and uncontroversial, and it is an absolutely no-brainer that we would follow it rather than some outdated or rogue taxonomy. Above the rank of order, the APG arrangements do not use formally named taxa; they use clades, which are necessarily informally named, since there is as yet no ratified formal nomenclatural system for clades in botany. A few Wikipedians have argued that we should use formal taxonomic names anyhow, but this has been rejected as either OR or just plain wrong. For example, "angiosperms" is an informal name that is used by modern sources to refer to the intended clade. "Magnoliopsida" is a formal name that was once used to refer to what were then considered the angiosperms, but as far as I know no-one has yet attempted to formally define "Magnoliopsida" to circumscribe the angiosperms clade as now understood. "Angiospermae" is even worse, having been published by Lindley at an inappropriate rank and a completely different circumscription. I could go on, but hopefully you can see by now that any attempt to super-impose formal taxonomic nomenclature on an arrangement that deliberately avoids using that nomenclature itself, is fraught with difficulties. The TL;DR version: the use of informal names is correct here.  Hesperian 05:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hesperians right. Best to stick with APG III ditching anything paraphyletic. Also, I wouldn't be mentioning it if there were good arguments to the contrary, but just about everything is converted to it regarding botany related articles. It would be a hell of a job to change it back.Chhe (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the 'common' names, so long as it's sufficiently unambiguous what they mean. E.g. Vitis uses the "Latin" names Magnoliophyta and Magnoliopsida, which require a mental change of gears to process (and the Magnoliopsida article is not terribly helpful). By contrast, Isatis is placed in Angiosperms and Eudicots, which readily informs anyone with a grounding in plant classification. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. We'll use the list at APG III as a guide as we continue working. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should say "Fabids" instead of "Eurosids I"? ErikHaugen (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm betting we should use the blue link on that list, not the red link. Take a look, and you'll see the ones with parenthesized names next to them are red with blue names in parentheses. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the existence of an article is a good signal, but APG_III shows fabids then (eurosids I) in parens, implying that fabids is the official name. Or wait is "eurosids I" the "common" name so we should use it? Anyway I just blue-linked fabids.... ErikHaugen (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, neither the APG system nor the APG II system used the term "fabids" or "malvids." I just went back and re-checked the APG III literature from 2009 when it was published and this seems to be the first time they switch from using "eurosids I" to "fabids" and there's no explanation of why they chose the new term. I assume they're trying to be consistent with their earlier clade names by naming if after the associated orders, e.g. fabids = closely allied with the Fabales and the malvids = closely allied with the Malvales. I not sure how much support there is for such names since they're so new. Rkitko (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a few more related questions if you think we should tackle them now. Which of the APG III clade ranks should we consider "minor ranks" that should not have the display_always turned on? Angiosperms, Eudicots, Monocots, Rosids, Asterids, etc. seem like major clades to me. Eurosids I etc. seems more like minor clades that should probably only be displayed in articles on orders (the rank directly below Eurosids I, Eurosids II). Does that make sense? Is core eudicots a minor rank, too? Conceivably, we could have taxoboxes with five clades between Plantae and an order. Seems a bit much. Rkitko (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Overlinked and overnames taxa in automatic taxobox
This automatic taxobox wikilinks the reader to the same page for the family and the order, both should not be linked if there are not separate articles on each. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Corallinaceae is the only family in the Corallinales. It is common practice to link both to the same article since there usually won't be two articles in these cases. Information on both will be at a single link. The automatic taxobox is correct as it is. Rkitko (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the only family of coralline red algae.
 * So this redirect is wrong, also: . What are the other family(ies)? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, it's Template:Taxonomy/Corallinaceae that causes that item to link to Coralline algae – it simply duplicates the fact that Corallinaceae is a redirect to Coralline algae. If this is wrong let's fix both of them. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all ranks are equally important to all taxa. The automatic taxoboxes should not remove fundamental taxa, such as subfamilies in the coralline red algae. Wikilinking twice to the same page while removing actual information from the taxobox is not an improvement. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the taxonomy template for the missing subfamily – is that acceptable now? If not, then this seems like a general issue – is it really important that monotypic taxa don't cause duplicated links? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If a taxon is "fundamental", then you can instruct the automatic taxobox to always display it by adding the parameter true at Template:Taxonomy/TAXONNAME. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I don't know how important it is, but seeing books and hearing scientists and seeing wikipedia list eukaryotes as prokaryotes or vice-versa when it comes to single-celled algae, it seems to me that eukaryote is important, but I'm told it is not, while it is important to link both Corallinales and Corallinaceae to the Coralline red algae article. I think taxoboxes are for readers to get a quick idea of the taxonomy and provide links to additional information. If it can be the source of clearing up confusion, the information should be there, if it just adds extra links for the reader, it seems unnecessary.
 * Is there any possible way that the automatic taxoboxes for the algae articles can be discussed at wikiproject algae before they are created or is there any chance of my getting a link to the discussion that created the initial choices that I've been asking for? I'm trying to work with and get community consensus in a taxonomically difficult area with few editors, and I don't see that single editors making sweeping, unsupported changes in the taxonomies of the algae is going to make the task any easier or obtain better results for the reader or for future editors. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Breaking this down because it's hard to follow:
 * Which articles listed eukaryotes as prokaryotes? Can you link to an example? How wide-spread is that issue? Is it all fixed now? If so, then it's a moot point. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and sometimes mistakes are made. This mistake does not justify including the domain rank in eukaryote taxoboxes. Previous consensus discussions here and here.
 * If you look at the article Coralline algae, it includes information on both taxa, indicated by bolding both terms in the taxobox and lead sentence. This is common practice. Linking both to the same page in child taxon articles is also common practice. I've almost never seen a taxobox leave a taxon unlinked. Additionally, both Corallinaceae and Corallinales redirect to Coralline algae. If this is incorrect as you suggest above, then be WP:BOLD and fix it.
 * Instead of discussing new automatic taxoboxes at WP:ALGAE, you could be bold and make them yourself. There was no centralized discussion on which taxonomies to accept when the automatic taxobox was created. Please understand that this template is very new and that we're still working out the kinks. That's why it's only been tested in a few places, though I think the pace of automatic taxobox adoption is now taking off. If something is wrong in the hierarchy in algae taxa, it's an easy fix. There's no prior discussion to link to on accepted taxonomies for this template to use. Quickly, here's what happened: The template was developed; Martin began testing and implementing it in a few places; Martin must have arbitrarily chosen one classification for algae represented by some existing taxobox (there are conflicting classifications in articles). Please don't see it as "single editors making sweeping, unsupported changes." This template is supposed to alleviate the confusion found in conflicting classifications presented in different articles. If it's wrong, we fix it. If Martin chose the wrong classification, we update it now. Easy, right? At least, much easier than it would have been before with thousands of edits required to change a classification. Now it takes a few edits. I am very grateful for this development.
 * I hope that clears a few things up. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)