Template talk:Infraspeciesbox

Changes to the template
I'm not convinced by some of the changes made on 8 November. Other changes may be ok, but I'd like to see them made stepwise rather than all together, so that they can be discussed individually. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's helpful to most editors to display a template containing the "raw" values of parameters with all the curly brackets visible. Generally the output of a template is only displayed on the template page if it looks more-or-less as it will in an article.
 * I'm not sure about the wisdom of introducing default values to parameters just to ensure that the display looks sensible when the parameter is absent (e.g. making "X." appear if genus is omitted). This could result in an erroneous use of the template appearing to produce acceptable output.

Not working when taxonomy templates have parenthetical disambiguation?
, Infraspeciesbox seems not to work when a taxonomy template has a parenthetical disambiguation. I was trying to switch Ficus pumila var. awkeotsang to an infraspeciesbox, but I'm not seeing a way to produce a species link that doesn't take the form Ficus (plant) pumila or show it as a gastropod. Presumably a species_link parameter as is supported by Subspeciesbox would resolve this issue in general (although for Ficus in particular I think the problem should be resolved by moving Taxonomy/Ficus to Taxonomy/Ficus (gastropod) and then moving Taxonomy/Ficus (plant) to the base title, matching the titles of the taxonomy templates to the titles of the respective genus articles). Plantdrew (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, nevermind much of that. I found that species link is supported here and solves the problem (but the more common underscored form of the parameter, species_link is not supported). Plantdrew (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I edited the template to allow species_link. I haven't tried converting Ficus pumila var. awkeotsang to an infraspeciesbox, because I'm rather tied up in real life at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, works fine now. Plantdrew (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

F. and f.sp.?
Can forma and forma specialis be added as options for this box? I know they are more for fungi and oomycota and stuff, but they are under the same code as plants. --Nessie (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have any articles on taxa at this level? Should we have such articles? I seem to recall that previously we thought not. In principle it's possible, although more tricky for f.sp., because at the lowest level automated and manual taxoboxes use the same template code, and this 'rank' isn't included. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ulmus parvifolia f. lanceolata, Sea trout, Salmo trutta fario, Marbled crayfish, Ash pug and Nymphaea lotus f. thermalis are the only articles with a manual taxobox using forma. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What prompted this was me updating Drechslera teres f. maculata. Doing a quick search shows Nymphaea lotus f. thermalis, and Ulmus parvifolia f. lanceolata.  And there are 38 pages in Category:Forma specialis taxa.  Granted that's not a huge amount.  --Nessie (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The key issue is whether a complete taxonomic hierarchy is needed in the taxobox. Consider an animal case, Salmo trutta fario. If fario is indeed just a morph/form, then the taxonomic hierarchy could run:
 * Species: S. trutta
 * Subspecies: S. t. SUBSPECIES
 * Morph: S. t. SUBSPECIES morpha fario
 * If there are no other subspecies, then "SUBSPECIES" here should be trutta. Such a case would need to be handled by an update to Subspeciesbox, because the subspecies name should not have a connecting term. (Actually, if fario is indeed just a morph/form, the article is at the wrong title, because under the ICZN, Salmo trutta fario is the subspecies fario, not the morph, a 'rank' which has no formal standing.)
 * If a complete taxonomic hierarchy is needed for a plant, say Ulmus parvifolia f. lanceolata, then an update would be needed to Infraspeciesbox, because the subspecies should have a connecting term, e.g.
 * Species: U. parviflora
 * Subspecies: U. parviflora subsp. parviflora
 * Morph: U. parviflora f. fario
 * (There's an all too typical error at Ulmus parviflora#Taxonomy, namely that a variety and form are listed without the nominate ones: if Ulmus parviflora var. coreana exists, then so must Ulmus parviflora var. parviflora.)
 * The method used at Barley stripe rust, with the connecting term added to the value of subspecies, is problematic, e.g. the link to Trinomial name says it's a subspecies. It might be possible, I think, to change the displayed left-hand text by adding subspecies_rank, but this will involve changing quite a few templates that implement the core functionality of a taxobox.
 * Summarizing,
 * Some of the cases identified above seem to me to be incorrect use of 'ranks' under the ICZN, making any taxobox doubtful.
 * Most of the remaining cases could perhaps be fixed by a non-trivial change to Subspeciesbox (at first I didn't realize that it would be non-trivial).
 * I remain unconvinced that the cost/benefit ratio makes it worthwhile to embark on this change. It's always been the case that manual taxoboxes should be used for "odd cases". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * could it be made so it could take a variable like " And that could cover all the forms, pathovars, morphs, etc.? --Nessie (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought this too, and earlier this evening started to look into how to implement it, but it's not as simple as it seems. The value of infraspecific_rank_name has to be entered into the system in several places (e.g. in Anglicise rank), because each line output in a taxobox goes through the same processing regardless of the kind of taxobox. But the main issue is that Taxobox/core, which is responsible for finally outputting the taxobox initially specified in Infraspeciesbox, accepts ranks as named parameters, so if you put e.g. forma specialis in Infraspeciesbox, then forma_specialis or a variant would have to exist in Taxobox/core. So although this approach could be made to work, as the values of infraspecific_rank_name would have to be chosen from a fixed set already known to the system, there's really no advantage compared to adding extra parameters such as forma, morpha, forma_specialis, etc. to Infraspeciesbox. The taxobox system, manual or automated, was designed from the start to work with a fixed set of known ranks – something I had previously realized, but had forgotten.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So then what is the best practice for articles using these oddball infraspecific ranks if they are neither in manual nor automated taxoboxes? --Nessie (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * forma is supported by manual taxoboxes. Since it is in Taxobox/core, I guess it wouldn't be too much trouble to get it supported in Infraspeciesbox. But there are only two articles that should be using forma (the plant ones; the ICZN doesn't recognize forma as a rank for animals), and it's questionable whether we should even have articles for forms. I'm fine sticking with manual taxoboxes for the few form articles we have. For f. sp., maybe use manual taxoboxes with unranked_varietas? Plantdrew (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I deliberately didn't include form in this template when I constructed it; it seemed, and still seems, extremely unlikely to me that we should have an article on a form. So I agree with on this issue. I'll continue to think about "f.sp."
 * (As an aside, we probably wouldn't need all the different kinds of automated tsxobox if the core were re-implemented in in Lua.) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"| pronounce"
Can we add this to this template?

| label7 = Pronunciation
 * data7 =

This code usually works Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why should we add this? It's not in any of the many other taxobox templates. This would need a thorough discussion and consensus advertised at multiple WikiProjects who use taxoboxes. (In general, we have resisted making taxoboxes even more complicated.)
 * (Plus the pronunciation of scientific names varies so much both between and within ENGVARs that any pronunciations given rapidly turn into a list of alternatives.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay so User:Peter coxhead I would be happy with not having pronunciation in the article at all if that is the case. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * that's my preference. There's WP:NOTDICT too. (Across the spectrum of articles, there's a lot of inconsistency. Why, for example, is there a pronunciation at Rhinitis, but not at Diphtheria? This dictionary says it's pronounced "dif-" but in the UK at least I always hear it pronounced "dip-".) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not add these. I just move them out of the first sentence of articles. I support either not including them or putting them in the infobox / body of the text. I do not read or write IPA. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do read IPA (I used to teach it), but the IPA used in the English Wikipedia is sui generis, so it's not clear to me that more than a vanishingly small proportion of our readers understand it. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Italic title
The template has been updated so that it will, in almost all cases, automatically italicize the page title if it should be italicized. This means that is rarely needed – and will cause an error if present when it isn't needed. ( has used AWB to fix those articles that did have .)

Please report here any errors you find. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

abbreviating specific epithet??
Why do the examples given say 'P. d.'' subsp. mlokosewitschii'''? I believe it is not correct nomenclatural practice to abbreviate the specific epithet, and I have never seen it done before. It should be 'P. daurica'' subsp. mlokosewitschii''', should it not? Hesperian 01:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you can say that it's "not correct"; it's not found in the ICNafp itself as far as I can see, and although I have seen botanical examples (do a Google search for the exact phrase ""B. v. ssp. maritima"), it doesn't seem common in botany. However, it's common in zoology (do a Google search for the exact phrase "H. s. sapiens" for example).
 * As per some previous discussions re ranks which don't have uninomial names, the main factor is the design of the taxobox, with its rows for genus, species, subspecies, etc. and then a binomial or trinomial box. The design implies that a binomial or trinomial is made up of components. For ICZN names, a design like the following could be justified, because specific names and subspecific names are names in their own right with their own authorities, albeit not the names of species or subspecies.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Genus: || Homo
 * Species: || sapiens
 * Subspecies: || sapiens
 * Trinomial: || Homo sapiens sapiens
 * }
 * For ICNafp names, it's clearly wrong. But without any abbreviation, you get what appears to be massive redundancy, and has been questioned as such:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * Trinomial: || Homo sapiens sapiens
 * }
 * For ICNafp names, it's clearly wrong. But without any abbreviation, you get what appears to be massive redundancy, and has been questioned as such:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Genus: || Paeonia
 * Species: || Paeonia daurica
 * Subspecies: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * Trinomial: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * }
 * It's better with the genus abbreviated, but not much:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * Trinomial: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * }
 * It's better with the genus abbreviated, but not much:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Genus: || Paeonia
 * Species: || P. daurica
 * Subspecies: || P. daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * Trinomial: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * }
 * So, personally, I think that although it may be unusual in running text, in a taxobox, given that we want to use the same design for names under all the codes, the best design is the following, which emphasizes the additional component of the name without being completely wrong.
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * Trinomial: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * }
 * So, personally, I think that although it may be unusual in running text, in a taxobox, given that we want to use the same design for names under all the codes, the best design is the following, which emphasizes the additional component of the name without being completely wrong.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Genus: || Paeonia
 * Species: || P. daurica
 * Subspecies: || P. d. subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * Trinomial: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * }
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trinomial: || Paeonia daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii
 * }
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Bacteria?
Can I use this one for bacteria, such as Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica? Bacteria use the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, instead of ICN. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried it at Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica, and it looks ok to me. Bacteria used to be under the ICNafp, so the main ranks are handled similarly as far as I understand. It's just ranks like serovars that seem to be different. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Further infraspecific ranks
The issue of supporting more infraspecific ranks has come up again via a discussion at User talk:Awkwafaba. Ranks that are currently used but not supported include "forma", "forma specialis", "serogroup" and "strain". Personally, I'm against keeping on adding extra ranks/cases to this template to deal with small minorities of cases. It greatly complicates the code (even if it's converted to Lua, as it eventually should be), and thus makes it hard to understand and maintain.

One possible solution is to allow two (?) extra free-text ranks which will be added to the bottom of the taxobox. The parameters would be something like: Added to an infraspeciesbox which had Vibrio and cholerae, the example parameters would produce:
 * RANK_NAME, e.g. serogroup
 * RANK, e.g. O1; the value would have to be fully formatted.

Adding the further parameters: would produce something like:
 * strain
 * El Tor

There would probably be the need for one more parameter, e.g.
 * Ulmus
 * parvifolia
 * form
 * f.
 * lanceolata (note italics)

The parameter names may not be the best. Comments on this complete proposal, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems a flexible solution. Perhaps infraspecies_rankN, etc. would be clearer. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * my preference for less typing suggested "extra" but "infraspecies" is, I think, clearer. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure how much this would come up, but what about in cases like Yersinia pestis biovar Medievalis str. Harbin 35 or Yersinia pestis subsp. microtus bv. Altaica that would conceivably display multiple infraspecific ranks? --awkwafaba (📥) 11:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think those would be handled by the proposed scheme. The first would need the following:
 * using Medievalis, biovariety (?) and biovar.
 * using Harbin 35, strain and str.
 * —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * but then would it display only the rank2, like the example above, or would it show both, like NCBI does? --awkwafaba (📥) 12:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * if you mean would it display the string "Yersinia pestis biovar Medievalis str. Harbin 35", the answer is no, because the template's primary purpose is to support botanical infraspecies, and the ICNafp is very clear that this string is not a name but a classification. An infraspecific name can only have three parts, i.e. be a trinomial. To get the four part output would be too much of a revision; in my view it would need a new taxobox template. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should trinomial name even be displayed and linked in the case of bacteria, then? The ICNP (Rule 13a) uses the term "ternary combination". Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it even be displayed and linked for plants? It seems to me very much a zoological term (but then should be "trinominal" I think). A search for "trinomial" in the ICNafp yields no results. The underlying issue seems to be that it was decided at the start that taxoboxes should be largely code-neutral; the earliest automated taxoboxes were completely so, I think. If someone wants to construct a "Bacteriabox" template (which I don't), then it should certainly be changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Implementation issue: I hadn't looked at how this might be implemented before making the proposal above (a mistake!), but because the infraspecific ranks are displayed by, not the automated taxobox system since they don't have taxonomy templates, any additional ranks would need to be added to . This has two implications:
 * is used by every single taxobox, manual or automated, which always makes me very, very hesitant to change it
 * as the ranks would be in, then manual taxoboxes (i.e. using ) would be able to use the additional ranks, so the relatively few cases could be handled in this way.
 * Alternatively, could be altered to use "infraspecies_rankN" parameters, but this would be a more major change. More thought needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The changes to the taxobox/core needn't be large, as the changes would be made elsewhere. The core just needs:
 * Then taxonomy would need a conditional block to use  directly without anglicise rank. A module for taxonomy and Anglicise rank might make it easier. The trinomial would need to be set in infraspeciesbox. Something like:
 * Alternatively just use paraphyletic group or hybridbox/lua (see right). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I have been testing such changes in my own sandboxes; as you say, they aren't too major.
 * However, if there is a solution using existing code, as you've shown, this is the way to go for now.
 * As an aside, I'm very reluctant to change any of the templates listed at Automated taxobox system/map to Lua, for the same reasons I set out elsewhere re the possible conversion of taxonomy templates to Lua, namely not requiring editors to know Lua to be able to change the 'outer' parts of the system. There was fierce resistance from some editors when I converted the core parts to Lua, for the same reason, but this conversion was absolutely necessary because the expansion depth restriction on template code was breaking deep hierarchies. But it has had consequences: before the conversion, there was a handful of editors who worked on and maintained the system; now it seems to be just me and you. This is not a good situation. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Found one in the wild at Ug99, which is a lineage of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici. I’m not even sure how to quadrinomialize that.  And then under that there are 13 races that i hope will never have their own articles. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I'm very reluctant to change any of the templates listed at Automated taxobox system/map to Lua, for the same reasons I set out elsewhere re the possible conversion of taxonomy templates to Lua, namely not requiring editors to know Lua to be able to change the 'outer' parts of the system. There was fierce resistance from some editors when I converted the core parts to Lua, for the same reason, but this conversion was absolutely necessary because the expansion depth restriction on template code was breaking deep hierarchies. But it has had consequences: before the conversion, there was a handful of editors who worked on and maintained the system; now it seems to be just me and you. This is not a good situation. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Found one in the wild at Ug99, which is a lineage of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici. I’m not even sure how to quadrinomialize that.  And then under that there are 13 races that i hope will never have their own articles. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a new one on me. The Forma specialis refers to the target of a parasitic plant or fungus. Looking at the examples of Puccinia graminis the final term (is there a name for this?) is the plural of the genus of the host. The article says Forma specialis is informal and applied when subspecies or variety aren't deemed appropriate, so I don't think Ug99 should be considered a variety. Seems more an equivalent of a cultivar. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * isn’t a cultivar a cultivated variety? I thought morphovar, chemovar, serovar, and all these other -vars were just specific kinds of varieties? --awkwafaba (📥) 11:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'd always taken a cultivar to be a cultivated version of a variety, i.e. a subset of the variety rather than a category of variety. You may be right, though. Or it might not be clear cut and refer to an distinct cultivated form. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Cultivar" is a technical term in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, and has a clear and precise meaning. A cultivar could derived from a botanical variety, or it could be a clone of a particular individual of a species, or a stabilized seed strain, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So is cultivar a specific kind of variety or not? --awkwafaba (📥) 02:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In short, no. It's a specific kind of variety in the everyday sense of the word, but not necessarily a specific kind of variety in the botanical sense of the word (i.e. the formal rank varietas). Review Cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So I think we got sidetracked, and now it's been long enough so I'm confused again. I have a few questions.
 * A) Which automated taxobox should we be using for nonstandard/minority infraspecific ranks like morphas and forma specialis?
 * B) Which automated taxobox should we be using for taxa with multiple infraspecific ranks?
 * C) Should we have a tracking category for articles for taxa with multiple infraspecific ranks, and what should we call it?
 * I realise I contributed to the derailing. But here we are. --awkwafaba (📥) 18:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My answers:
 * A) has provided above examples of how to create taxoboxes for nonstandard/minority infraspecific ranks. I'm currently of the view that keeping on adding to the main automated taxobox system to deal with "odd" cases isn't a good idea. Any change would need a wider discussion than here.
 * B) For ICNafp names, where the ranks are accepted by the Code, use Infraspeciesbox. Otherwise, see (A).
 * C) Multiple infraspecific ranks are not the issue; non-standard ones are, and it would be useful to have a tracking category for taxoboxes using them.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Change to handling of default taxobox name in Infraspeciesbox
There was an inconsistency in how Speciesbox and Infraspeciesbox set the name of the taxobox by default (i.e. when name was absent). I've revised Infraspeciesbox to follow Speciesbox, i.e. to use the page name as the default (previously it used the trinomial). This means that at Carrot, for example, it's no longer necessary to put Carrot. Most articles using Infraspeciesbox will not have changed taxoboxes, because editors have usually specified the name parameter when the article is not at the scientific name. This is now redundant, but does no harm. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Handling extinct status
Just to note that at present this template does not show † for extinct infraspecies. An example of an extinct botanical infraspecies is Ryania speciosa var. mutisii. I am working to fix this. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pathovars
Bacterial nomenclature uses "pathovar" and "pv." instead of "subspecies" and "ssp." Can we add this in the manner of variety/varietas? See Xanthomonas campestris pv. raphani where I'm using varietas (but would prefer to use pathovar) and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria which uses the manual taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you can do that using Infraspeciesbox special.
 * Should the bacterial name use italics? The page and taxobox name at Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria don't but the text does. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh nice! Yes, they should. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That works like a charm! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)