Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 24

Clade or Unranked?
On this page there are three listed clades in between Kingdom and Order. This makes sense, but it is the first place I have seen this done? What is the guideline when it comes to clades or unranked? Are they the same thing when it comes to the use on the taxoboxes?  A. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:Taxonomy/Cactaceae is used as part of the Automatic taxobox, which is capable of using the more correct "clade." The manual taxobox uses "unranked" instead. In the sense that the APG III system higher ranks are clades, they are also not assigned ranks, so it is correct either way. Rkitko (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. That answered the question perfectly. Therefore, it really does not matter whether it says clade or unranked. The only issue is that couldn’t that be confusing to readers? If the unranked means a clade, then why not put clade for all of them? It could help make more evolutionary sense for readers who don’t understand the “unranked” classification. Suggestions?  A. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  02:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At least when you're talking about the APG III system, they truly are unranked, informal clades above the rank of order. That's not true of all uses of the unranked parameters. That's why when we were trying to resolve this exact problem of how to display "clade" in the taxobox instead of "unranked" we realized the inconsistency of use of, say, unranked_ordo across vastly different groups. It was too difficult to code the taxobox to make it read "clade" for some groups and "unranked" for others. At least that's my recollection of the discussion. I also suggested using a classification_system parameter to display a link to APG III system, for example, which would hopefully clear up questions like that. This, though, has problems because APG III only goes to the family level, where other classifications take over below. Perhaps there's no perfect answer there. And besides, everything will probably be changing in a few years! Now that the APG team has resolved a lot of the main higher level systematics questions, I think there will be a push to return to Linnaean ranks as was done in this proposal: . Rkitko (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! That helps a lot. I did discover a site that is a draft for a more organized system. I am not sure if it is exactly the same thing but it’s called [PhyloCode]. I wonder which way the decisions will go in years to come? Cheers!  A. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  07:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Phylocode is a totally non-rank based system. It is as such not well suited for a taxo-box, which is primarily a navigational aid. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, provided that you use the Automatic taxobox template, you can use PhyloCode names perfectly well (because you set up the hierarchy using "Taxonomy/..." templates, so you don't have to invent 'pseudoranks' like 'unranked_superdivisio'). Note that I'm not advocating using PhyloCode names! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC
First of all, my apologies for the above commotion. I've requested that the bot task be halted immediately until some form of community approval is gained here, because I'd hate to ruin Plastikspork's reputation, too. The reason this RfC did not appear until now is because I believed it to be a minor, behind-the-scenes edit which would not have a significant effect on much of anything; only that it serves as a series of cleanup edits.

Problem: It's been pointed out that the behavior of the "unranked" parameters is rather unruly and unpredictable, unless you've memorized them and have experience with them. Some unranked parameters display above the indicated rank, some below. Some display several ranks higher. Also, it's difficult to guess when an unranked parameter is available for any given level.

Solution: A reordering of the taxa, as well as the implementation of an unranked taxon partnering each ranked taxon. An unranked taxon can be placed above any ranked taxon using unranked_ followed by the rank it should be above.

Changes shown below; additions in green, removals in red.

I should point out that all changes have already been made and all taxoboxes modified accordingly, a surprisingly small number (couldn't have been more than 200), with the exception of the taxoboxes that feature the unranked_familia above the superfamilia. A few days ago, there were around 26K of these, and has graciously cleaned up around 5K of them so far per my request, but I have requested he stop until I can prove the edit is uncontroversial, lest he lose his good standing with the community as well.

The only template change which has not been carried out yet is this one:

Around 21K taxoboxes must be updated yet, by changing the parameter unranked_familia to unranked_superfamilia and unranked_familia_authority to unranked_superfamilia_authority, a minor edit that will not affect the way the taxoboxes are currently displayed, but is crucial before the above edit can be made to taxobox/core.

I am open to reverting the completed edits, though I do believe these edits are for the better.

Again, my apologies for the ruckus around here. If anyone has questions regarding this, please don't hesitate to ask them. This decision was not a "rash" decision, it was formed using principles of logic, so if there are questions, then I have answers. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 07:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * Support It's just clarification. I don't exactly see why this is controversial. :/ It has no visible effect on manual taxoboxes (it will still display as ) and helps automated taxoboxes to display it correctly where it should be placed . It adds disambiguation that the clade is considered to be above the superfamily level and not below it.--  Obsidi ♠ n Soul  07:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to counter your support, but I thought I'd point out this won't be of any use to the automatic taxobox-- the automatic taxobox doesn't manage the sequence of ranks at all. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, my bad. All the more reason then if it's displaying higher clades below/above where they were intended to be.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support I actually started this, I think, by pointing out that the system was inconsistent. There is a clear difference, in my view, between 'fixes' and 'changes'.  This is a fix, since the documentation was clear that 'unranked-X' displayed above 'X' whereas actually sometimes it did and sometimes it didn't; also the documentation did not explain that some taxa had an 'unranked' counterpart and some didn't. However trivial changes may seem, I think an RfC is desirable. (E.g. changing colours in taxoboxes may seem trivial, but does need wider input: colours are affected by variations in platform, browser, monitor setup, etc. and also by widespread anomalies in colour vision, especially among men. Colours which are distinct to the original editor may not be to others.)  But fixes should be done as soon as possible; I'm very grateful for the speed with which my initial comment was taken up. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: (and close per WP:SNOWBALL?) The only disadvantage that's been mooted is that this change will waste editors' resources. This is best mitigated by avoiding further consumption of editors' time in this RfC process.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Fixing the rank order is important for maintenance and utility of the template. Rkitko (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is non-controversial fix. By the way, is there already known a real example, that needs clades between family and superfamily? If yes, then is this fix necessary. --Snek01 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose
Strong oppose The edits are not necessary. They do nothing. They may become obsolete, although I'm not certain this is reason for opposition, the fact that they offer no utility whatsoever to the existing articles and that a number of highly interested members of the community are moving wikipedia toward automated taxoboxes suggests the edits are more than worthless, but also a complete waste of editing resources. The controversial way they have been gone about, seeking alternate means of getting approval, not mentioning they were being done by an alternate account when concerns about them were raise, also suggest they are detrimental. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow any of your rationales for opposing this. In my opinion, the edits are necessary to make the placement of  taxa uniform in the template placement above the regular taxon (e.g. unranked_familia is placed above familia in the taxobox). Would you rather the sloppy code go unfixed and cause further problems in the future when others get confused why only a few unranked_ parameters fall below while all others appear above the regular taxon parameter? Rkitko (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many of these 27,000 articles require these unranked taxa? Are the taxoboxes in these articles completely uniform otherwise? Who will get confused by this? How many editors will this impact? Will these articles then need updated with automatic taxoboxes, or is that years down the line? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The best is the enemy of the good": yes, I'm sure we all agree with you that it would be nice to completely fix all these taxoboxes; many of them probably don't need these unranked taxa. However, this doesn't mean that a simple fix to a current inconsistency isn't worthwhile. It won't change the appearance of the taxoboxes and won't prevent later changes, e.g. to automatic taxoboxes or removing minor taxa which shouldn't be there – indeed, it should make it easier to automate such changes if there's a completely consistent usage of 'unranked-'. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing that would make automation the easiest is to establish stability and gain consensus. I don't think we'll reach agreement, here, but I do respect your arguments. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "not necessary. They do nothing" -- They fix a flaw in the intuitivity of the usage of the template. The documentation states that the unranked taxon of equal "rank" wil display immediately above that rank.
 * "may become obsolete...a number of highly interested members of the community are moving wikipedia toward automated taxoboxes...Will these articles then need updated with automatic taxoboxes, or is that years down the line?"" -- Unless we have some sort of rampage and decide to phase out the taxobox as fast as possible, which I don't foresee for at least ten or fifteen years (five at an absolute minimum), this isn't at all likely. Yes, it'll get phased out, but nowhere near fast enough to merit completely deprecating this template. Even five years is longer than most software even lasts, so cleanup that put it in better condition for even only that long (in my opinion) is surely worth a little consideration, at least.
 * "the fact that they offer no utility whatsoever to the existing articles" -- The articles will remain unaffected visually. But the intent isn't to change existing articles; the intent is to make it easier to add unranked taxa properly in the future.
 * "a complete waste of editing resources" -- There's no hurry to carry these edits out. If this takes years to do, it takes years to do. And at least one editor who tackled a good 5K or so of them already without the help of a bot didn't seem to think it a waste of his own resources.
 * "The controversial way they have been gone about, seeking alternate means of getting approval, not mentioning they were being done by an alternate account when concerns about them were raise, also suggest they are detrimental." -- I have provided the code above for the planned revision. If you can find any detrimental aspect to it, by all means, let me know. The bot request, since this is a minor cleanup revision which is not altering the output, does not in my opinion warrant any approval beyond the bot request.
 * "How many of these 27,000 articles require these unranked taxa?" -- Most likely very few of them. But that's not the issue being presented.
 * "Are the taxoboxes in these articles completely uniform otherwise?" -- Does this change anything?
 * "Who will get confused by this?" -- No one. In fact, this will clear up confusion in the manner for adding unranked taxa.
 * "How many editors will this impact?" -- Only those who wish to partake in helping perform the required edits. Doing so is voluntary, and there is no rush, though sooner is better, of course, as that means the pending edit to this template can be carried out and the problem thereby resolved for good. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments
This template is in flux at the moment. Actually flux may be too weak a work; upheaval may be better. In situations like this, it's important that great care is taken. A conservative approach is called for, with plenty of discussion and testing. But it's also important to keep boldly pushing along the reform agenda, without getting bogged down in pointless permission-asking and consensus-testing, lest the whole project collapse under its own inertia. Somehow we have to find the right balance between the two. I've occasionally felt that changes are being made too recklessly—several times now the taxobox has been broken on thousands of pages, sometimes for several hours—but still the balance between action and discussion is roughly right. Bob and Martin, carry on driving this forward, but be careful. Kleopatra, keep asking tough questions. Hesperian 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the dozen edits Bob undertook over a 24 hour period were well thought-out, in addition to not having consensus prior to making them. I think these multiple non-consensus edits are amounting to bumbling around, rather than moving forward. We're creating Microsoft Windows, God help us.
 * A directive to gain consensus before editing should go out to administrators editing this template, until administrators understand that a template in 100,000 articles is not a sandbox. Know what you are doing, know that you have consensus, know how to do it.

And, I would like to be able to edit the template, also. But I can't. Every time I come here to start making a suggestion I either find that the taxobox on Bird is broken, or something like someone has made a dozen all-over-the-place edits without discussion (and, no, Martin's talk page doesn't count as gaining consensus). I can't just edit it, either. I have to gain consensus, then request, well, whom?


 * I'm tired of making manual taxoboxes. But the rate of bumbling here and with the automatic taxoboxes clearly shows it is not ready for prime time. If the edits done here were careful and without error, as they should be; if the edits done here showed that parties editing the template has excellent skills for doing the editing; if the edits done here showed that the administrators doing the edit were respectful of the wikipedia community of editors and its policies and guidelines, then automatic taxoboxes would be the way to go.
 * I appreciate your comments, Hesperian. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While I support the straightforward fixes that Bob suggests, I would note that for many of the 21,000 articles, it is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. The vast majority (at least on the first few pages of the category) are lepidopterans using minor ranks in their taxoboxes. According to WP:TX, such ranks should not be included, and wherever I come across a taxobox with "Phylum: Arthropoda; Class: Insecta; Order: Lepidoptera; Suborder: Glossata; (unranked): Ditrysia; Superfamily: Gracillarioidea; Family: Gracillariidae", or similar, I replace it with "Phylum: Arthropoda; Class: Insecta; Order: Lepidoptera; Family: Gracillariidae", which is all that is needed. If someone's going to run a bot through them all, perhaps it might consider making that change instead of tweaking unnecessary minor ranks. Many of those articles seem to be missing the, too, so fixing that at the same time would be greatly helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that input, that's actually a good idea. Knowing that, we might be able to have the same pass perform that edit as well. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 12:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not so simple. WP:TX doesn't say that minor taxa shouldn't be used; it says "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." This is an important point: editors need to be able to over-ride automated taxoboxes if it's appropriate for the article. Without reading articles, you can't be sure that the minor taxa aren't appropriate, especially for a very large group like lepidoptera. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, Peter...and actually, the automatic taxobox does have a feature for handling that, the always_display parameter. I'd have said something along the lines of what you'd stated, Peter, if it weren't for the fact I misread Stemonitis's suggestion. Peter's right-- minor ranks shouldn't be omitted all the time-- take the Saurischia, for instance. If I'm reading about a dinosaur I've never heard of, I'd sure like to know whether it's a sauropod or a theropod-- it's the difference between a bipedal carnivore and a quadrupedal herbivore. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We've had a good month to cool down from the heat of this discussion. Is there any opposition remaining to requesting a bot to perform cleanup on a category and subsequently carry out a single edit to taxobox/core? If so, please speak up. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this page hasn't been updated since the conversation bugs me, but I'm going to proceed now with the bot request since there's been plenty of time for anyone to voice remaining concerns. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The bot request may be found at WP:Bot requests. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I offer my services as a bot operator to perform the task, if and when the task is approved. I can offer no expertise on taxonomy, and therefore no opinion as to whether the change ought to proceed. However, if there is consensus for the move, I would be delighted to help. Please note that the bot task has to be approved by a separate process - see WP:BRFA. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that page for requests for new bots, not tasks? That's why I requested it at WP:BTR (the whole process of requesting the task needs clarified on that page, if it's not the place to do it). Also, there's no move involved; this is a text replacement task. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An additional RfC has been launched per Stem's suggestion above. If approved, we may be able to do as he suggested and tack that on so both cleanup tasks get done in a single sweep. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)