Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 29

Domain
Please add in the domain. It's missing but it's an integral component to taxonomy. I would do it myself but I don't understand wikipedia programming language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a domain parameter which can be used in the taxobox. Apparently consensus is to not include domain except in articles about bacteria, archaea, and the articles about the eukaryote kingdoms themselves (Plant, Animal], Fungus).Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your "consensus" goes against scientific consensus. Is there also consensus that 1+1=3? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus meant here is not concerned with how organisms are classified, but with how our summaries of their classification are presented. As a deliberately short summary, only the most important ranks are included. You might argue that the domain is tremendously important, but it really isn't; generally, knowing what kingdom an organism belongs to is sufficient detail at the base of the tree. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to agree with Stemonitis here.--Mishae (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Name and Italic title
I came to understanding that using name and italic title in an article that uses the same binomial or the same genus, family or other name is a waste of taxobox space and is probably even confusing for editors as well. In some cases I read that repitition is not desirable, and this is such case. As a side note, user Rkitko mentioned that it would be harder for new editors if the italic title and name wont be present at taxobox anymore. However I need to reson here by saying that new editors wont have a hard time, for an example look on the discussion above: Someone removed domain name, no big deal.--Mishae (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not necessarily that simple. There are some circumstances where it can be useful to include both. It prevents typos from causing unrelated formatting errors; it prevents other things that may or may not be considered typos from causing formatting errors (text such as " |binomial =  Genus species  ", with additional spaces inside the apostrophes, appears surprisingly often in taxoboxes). There are further advantages that crop up when pages are moved (either appropriately or maliciously), and in other hopefully short-lived scenarios. I would even argue that it is simpler for the average editor if it is clear why something is happening, and adding a template that clearly italicises the title is a lot more fathomable than trying to find whatever bit of documentation it is that explains that, if the article title exactly matches the  or   field (with the appropriate number of apostrophes on either side and no other characters), then the title will be italicised. There is no word limit on Wikipedia (WP:NOTPAPER), so we don't need to worry about a potential "waste of taxobox space". Editability and ease of understanding for editors are the overriding issues (provided the article's appearance to readers is unchanged), and to that end, it can be useful to include both, which is indeed what I routinely do. I would consider any recommendation to editors to use one or other system to be unwelcome instruction creep. --Stemonitis (talk)
 * O.K. This is your point but this is mine and user Rkitko point. For example, I would agree on article such as Zebra or Lion to have an italic title template just because the binomial name is different from the common one, but thats it. O' and Stemonitis, there is no point pointing out that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Everybody even me knows that and I am not stupid, so don't treat me like such, O.K.? As far as instruction creep goes, I don't really see why you are in such defense of it? Assuming that every newbie is not experienced yet is shameful and goes against WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. I personally believe that once an editor will find its field and get familiarized with ever changing environment here, he won't care much.--Mishae (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unable to enter/ show Cladus
I created my first article namely Ormosia travancorica. When i try to enter the data of Wikispecies (Which is  updated classification), I can't why? For example, there are many  Cladus parameter, here the box shows as unranked. Please, make necessary changes to enter such data. --தகவலுழவன் (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't Wikispecies, and we don't do things exactly the way that they do. What I suggest you do when creating a new plant article is to look at the way that it's done for another taxon classified in the same way and copy that; in this case look at Galega officinalis, for example. I'll leave some more comments at your talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I read my talk page. Thanks. Eventhough // This isn't Wikispecies,//, i think we should furnish updated classification as APG III not obsolete classification. Bye!--தகவலுழவன் (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New parameter
I would like to discuss a new parameter - Hardiness zone. I have used wikipedia to find out possible habitable zones (more specific - temperatures they can survive) for some species (plants, animals) and usually it's really hard to find this information. As all species have specific temperature zones (hardiness zones) where they can survive, i suggest to add this parameter to template, as it can be very useful.  Vilnisr  T 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All species may have hardiness zones, but this information is known for only a very small fraction of species (chiefly commonly cultivated plants). Hardiness zones need to be experimentally determined; you can't line up a hardiness zone map with a map of the distribution of a wild species to determine its tolerance to cold; its range may be limited by other factors than minimum winter temperatures. A hardiness zone parameter doesn't really seem appropriate for the taxobox; the information can be included in the article text. You might trying asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening for ideas on how to better incorporate information on hardiness zones into the article. Plantdrew (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other big problem would be which hardiness zone system to use for which plant. US editors often seem to think that the UDSA hardiness zones are universal, but they are not. There is a system for Britain and Ireland (the RHS system), a system for Australia, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Skipping
The habit of step-skipping when listing scientific classifications using this template is horrible, I think. It's one thing to omit something accidentally when we don't know it, or to forget to include it, but to actually intentionally omit or remove intermediate classifications just serves to promote confusion about the branching.

We should make it a necessity to include these fields, and disallow removing such steps. If anything, the template should be altered to leave a blank space if the field is removed so we know it is missing and can restore it.

If we have to omit stuff due to space restrictions, we should do so with the higher-up obvious stuff like animalia/chordata/mammalia which are well known, and which people could find out by moving up the tree if necessary. But people can not easily find intermediate lower-end stuff that we omit, and would be left ignorant of critical branch points if we do not include them. Ranze (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikispecies kind of has what you what. See Homo habilis, and make sure to click on Expand Taxonavigation. 31 steps above Hominoidea are hidden, and 5 from Hominoidea to Homo automatically display. Surely nobody is really learning that humans are mammals from the taxobox. But most people probably don't know that the closest mammalian relatives to the primates are in a superorder called Euarchontoglires. Is this superorder worth including in the taxobox for all primates and their relatives? The close relatives of humans are of particular interest, but for most organisms, the closely related organisms that might be classified in the same tribe or subfamily aren't very relevant. Skipping minor ranks (steps) is appropriate most of the time; exceptions can be determined on a case by case basis. When there is an article on the next highest rank (however minor), it is good to include it in the taxobox. Adding Tribe Hominini to the Homo article would be a good idea. Adding Hominini to Homo habilis (and other Homo species) is perhaps excessive. Readers who are interested in related organisms are more likely to work their way up one step at a time (going from Homo to Hominini) than jumping two, three or more steps (jumping from Homo habilis to Euarchontoglires). Plantdrew (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with adding more ranks to taxoboxes. They are intended to provide readers with a general orientation. They are often already too long for the article, interfering with the placement of images. The correct place to explain and discuss the detailed classification of the taxon which is the subject of the article is in the text. Taxoboxes are not a substitute for text – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of tables. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other issue is simply technical. Apparently, the way the system is coded now causes deeply nested taxoboxes to break or skip major parent taxa in error if there are too many parents. Skipping alleviates the problem. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice on Conservation Status when applied to Distinct Population Segments
In the case of Rainbow trout, the overall type species Oncorhynchus mykiss is not threatened or endangered, yet there are Distinct population segments that are designated as either threatened or endangered. Whats the best way to handle this in the Taxobox status parameters? Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that the taxobox should apply to the taxon that is the subject of the article. If Oncorhynchus mykiss is not listed under any conservation status, then one should omit that part of the taxobox. In the text, the conservation status of distinct population segments can and should be discussed, but not in the taxobox. If there were an article on a distinct population segment of O. mykiss, then it would be different, but I think it unlikely that separate articles for DPSs would be justified. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Diversity link
I came across the Fabaceae article, which gives a figure for ("730 genera and 19.400 species"), but doesn't include a. As a result, the taxobox shows a broken link, like this: |Diversity. Issues with this parameter have been raised before, and while there were problems raised, the last suggestion, of having a default (perhaps as Biodiversity as suggested) would solve cases like this, as well as taking the first step towards standardising the section. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 00:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I put something in the link param to get it to look better for now – this doesn't really address your question, of course. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if no is provided, the field should probably not be linked at all. It might be confusing if some articles link to a [&#91;List of Genus species]] and some link to the generic [&#91;biodiversity]]. I think readers generally understand what "diversity" is. In fact, it might be more intuitive if the link was always in the content, not the heading (along the lines of "Diversity" "c. 1800 species", rather than "Diversity" "c. 1800 species"), but that's a rather larger change and much harder to implement given the existing usage. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article fix Erik. I agree with Stemonitis that the contents, not the header should link to the diversity article/section. I'd also say you're right about the inconsistent links, but if we managed to move the link from the header (overcoming any problems), shouldn't we make it link to the general case article, like the other headers do (i.e. Conservation status, Virus classification, Scientific classification, Binomial name, Trinomial name etc.)? Existing usage may be a problem, and I was about to propose a tracking category, only to find Category:Articles using diversity taxobox in the code. There are just over 1,700 articles and I'm working my way through them now; if we remove any links in, we should be able to follow the suggestion to move the link. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Was the template changed? The Diversity link atm seems to be double-bolded. It shows up Diversity rather than Diversity.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasn't been changed yet, but I'm more than half way through the articles that may need changing before it can be. I can't seem to find the code in Template:Taxobox/core that's used to make the headings bold (perhaps it's in the initial ?), but is it happening when the diversity_link is a selflink to the article (which adds   tags in addition to any styling)? &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's the latter, this should be fixed with the proposed changes; the only slight irritation will be that the diversity text will now be bold if it matches the title (from what I've seen this applies to maybe 5% of current uses), but hopefully someone will know a way to check parameters against the article title in AWB, so we can remove these workarounds. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 12:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've cleared all uses of links, tags and templates that would break the template if we applied to  rather than its heading, which had been the only objection to implementing it straight away. I've made the proposed change along with a fix for taxoboxes missing at both sandboxes (see testcases). There were quite a few ref tags, which have led me to add a new parameter too (matching the existing ), which will hopefully also have the benefit of encouraging verifiability. Unless anyone objects to any of this I'll add an edit request in a bit. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 12:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please update Template:Taxobox and Template:Taxobox/core from their sandboxes (Template:Taxobox/sandbox (diff), Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox (diff)). Thanks to Rjwilmsi I'll be able to correct cases of matching the title or linking to Biodiversity once this is done, when removing the parameter won't break the box. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 08:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Are any documentation changes needed? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've added, which should cover it. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tfd
Please see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Floral formula
I raised the issue at Wikiproject plants that it would be useful to add Floral formula to the taxobox. See for instance Liliaceae, where it appears under Description as Floral formula:  *   P 3+3 A 3+3 G (3)

But was subsequently transformed into an Image frame:


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we add a parameter so that the floral formula can be added to the taxobox, eg

| Floral_formula = which might appear as Floral formula:  *   P 3+3 A 3+3 G (3) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This change needs to be coded up in the sandbox and tested before it can go live. Due to the complexity of the taxobox template, there's a real chance that something might break, even though this sort of request is usually simple for other kinds of infoboxes. See WP:TESTCASES for more about the sandbox/testing process, and if you need help with the coding you can ask at WP:WikiProject Templates or at WP:VPT. And feel free to ask me any questions you might have as well. (Best to post on my talk page if that's the case, as I'm not watching this page.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Common name of species are nor capitalised
Following discussions on Talk:Crowned crane, on Move review/Log/2014 March and especially on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, it is now clear that the consensus is not to capitalise the common (vernacular) name of all species.

The guidelines are detailed on Manual of Style.

Coreyemotela (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

"(unranked)" label and colons
Might the "(unranked)" label be superfluous and are the colons following each label really necessary? (A fine template otherwise!) Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The "(unranked)" label is helpful in distinguishing between names which conform to one of the nomenclature codes, i.e. have ranks like kingdom, phylum/division, class, family, etc., and those which are informal clade names.
 * I don't have a strong view about the colon, but we're used to it, so "if it ain't broke, ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be noted that we also have a label for "clade", though I can imagine there are taxa out there which are both unranked and not treated as clades. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * can you point me to an example of a taxobox where "clade" appears? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might only be a feature of the template:automatic taxobox, and used often for extinct groups that don't fit nicely into Linnaean ranks: see Bird or Paraves for examples.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So what happens if one person wants to use the taxobox for displaying traditional Linnaean taxonomy and another person wants to use the taxobox for displaying modern cladistic taxonomy (and they don't agree with each other)? Is there a guideline on which one takes precedence? Can an article include both by having two taxoboxes? Kaldari (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say common sense would preclude having two taxoboxes. A good article would address alternate classifications in both cladisitic and Linnaean aspects (ideally highlighting consensus among researchers), and its taxobox would include only major, relevant higher taxa (bilateria, for instance, makes sense to include on Protostome, but doesn't need to be included on Human).--Animalparty-- (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus among (modern) researchers is almost always a cladistic taxonomy, while consensus of reliable sources is almost always a Linnaean taxonomy. I frequently run into conflicts between the two when working on arthropod articles. Given that there are millions of arthropod species, I don't think it makes sense to repeat discussions of these conflicts in every species article. That would lead to an enormous amount of redundant content. On the flip side, without such an explanation, the taxobox may be confusing or misleading, especially when the Linnaean taxonomy hasn't been updated in 40 years because all the researchers are working with the cladistic taxonomy now. It's very frustrating trying to explain to other editors that the Linnaean taxonomy is often simply wrong and outdated, as there are rarely sources stating it that explicitly. Usually, what happens is that the two taxonomies gradually become so divergent that the Linnaean taxonomy (or portions of it at least) is eventually just abandoned by researchers and no longer referenced or updated. This problem is only going to get worse and I think we should really consider how to address it systematically. My advice would be that we prefer the most up-to-date (authoritative) taxonomies even if they are not reflected in more popular sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a question of what "we" prefer, but of what reliable secondary sources do (see WP:RS, for example). The problem is that there often aren't such sources for many modern cladistic taxonomies, and phylogenetic studies in primary sources often disagree.
 * If you want clade labels, you can use the automatic taxobox system. It works differently from the 'normal' taxobox system; the ordering of the taxa is determined by the 'database' in the "Template:Taxonomy/..." pages, so there's no need for ugliness like "unranked-subfamilias" or adding things like "clade-subfamilias". The more I think about it, the less I believe that "clade" labels should be added to the 'normal' taxobox system. Since it relies on the meaning of the labels to determine display order, it really isn't suited to clades. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I noticed them (the colons) because there tends to be quite a wide gap, relatively speaking, between each and the data following them. (Also, other infoboxes don't seem to use them.) Perhaps that qualifies as "stretched nearly to breaking point". An alternative suggestion: right-justify the labels so that the gaps are made narrower (and the same) and the colons aligned...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Conservation status
Is there any chance to put tooltips on the conservation status codes. For example if someone didn't know what EW stood for, they could hover over it and the tooltip would tell them. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that would be somewhat difficult to do without breaking the image into separate images for each code icon. Right now the "status bar" is just one image that gets switched out based on the code that is set. Kaldari (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something could be achieved with the ImageMap extension? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How to denote rank for "Subterclass"?
I'm working on expanding the content of millipedes, which have a highly split system of ranks (see here). In addition to various sub- and infra- taxa, there is the existence of two major "subterclasses" between the rank of infraclass and superorder. Is there a way to denote this in the taxobox, e.g on subterclass Colobognatha, without resorting to unranked (incorrect) or clade (imprecise)? Is there a general syntax or format for displaying little-used ranks? Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a good idea to display lots of minor ranks in taxoboxes. They are long enough already. They are meant to summarize and provide basic navigation for readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and recognize that the idiosyncrasies of milliped taxonomy may not shoehorn nicely into existing templates, but Colobognatha and Eugnatha are fairly major divisions of the class (why the authorities opted for "subterclass" rather than, say magnorders is beyond me). While I agree that the rank does not need to appear on every subordinate taxon's article or taxobox, for the articles about the clade themselves at least it would be nice to designate it. Any thoughts on how to best achieve this? Along those lines, is there a way to change "unranked" to simply "clade"? since subterclass is a rank, even if arbitrary and obscure.--Animalparty-- (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding a new rank to the taxobox system isn't simple; more than one template needs to be altered, including Template:Taxobox/core. It's not something I feel competent to tackle at present. Sorry. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I've solved the problem by using Automatic taxobox, which allows for the proper rank name to be displayed. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good; I'm sure using the automated system is the right approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)