Template talk:Taxon italics

Hybrids and chimaerae
I see that this now handles, to produce Felis silvestris catus ×&amp;#32;Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis. Ideally this would be Felis silvestris catus&amp;nbsp;×&amp;#32;Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis (assuming the &amp;#32; is actually needed).

The exact input may sometimes have a thin- or hair-space character, or none at all, for hybrids with their own unique names, e.g. ×Amarcrinum which would ideally be auto-kerned to ×&amp;#8202;Amarcrinum (with a hair-space, encoded the way that actually works cross-browser) – both for readability/accessibility and for cleaner data (actual separation of the epithet from the connecting term). The fully spaced style × Amarcrinum is also attested but is kind of bletcherous, and easily confusing to non-botanists; it looks like an error, while closely grouping with a hair-space markedly reduces this effect by making it a unit: ×&#8202;Amarcrinum. I suggest that input of × Amarcrinum (or x Amarcrinum, ×&amp;nbsp;Amarcrinum, etc.) be output as ×&amp;#8202;Amarcrinum also. I would surmise that in the run-together case, of × fused directly to the genus, that it wouldn't be practical to detect a mistaken x, since some epithets begin with x.

Another case like this is the + used to indicate a graft chimaera, like +&#8202;Laburnocytisus, if the template's not already detecting that. That interpolated character should also be hair-spaced and non-italic, I would think. Screen readers should have it easier, interpreting it as "plus" followed by some kind of whitespace then a name to pronounce, rather that a string of unidentified code to sound out character-by-character. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's actually accidental that it handles "Felis silvestris catus × Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis"; it's not designed to.
 * There's no consensus on how to space the × in a nothogenus or nothospecies, although the × definitely belongs with the next word. So the template simply leaves what it finds: &amp;nbsp; or &amp;thinsp; or &amp;32; or nothing. I believe that this is the correct action unless and until there's a consensus. (Personally I prefer &amp;thinsp;. Screen readers are apparently an issue with no space, but I haven't checked this.) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Italics inversion, for use in book titles
The output Elaeagnus × &#32;submacrophylla isn't going to work right in cases where the style needs to be flipped, as in a book title. See for how I handled that (by adding an invert parameter). That template also does some other stuff that might be worth adapting, if the cases are close enough. Lua makes me want to bite someone, so I did it in old-school template code, though someone is free to convert the template to Lua if it would be more efficient or capable that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The template and Lua code were developed for use in taxoboxes, where inversion isn't an issue. I don't really see it being used outside this context, but it's an idea to be kept in mind.
 * The advantage of Lua is that the complex logic that handles cases like "Acer pictum subsp. mono" or "Mus (Mus) musculus domesticus" as well as "Hamamelis × intermedia" is much easier to understand and modify than nested template expressions. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)