Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 6

Series
I just came across Template:Taxonomy/Saturniiformes which has rank set to "series" and is just below superfamily in rank. There are a few taxonomy templates for plant series (as a rank below subgenus/sectio), e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Banksia ser. Ochraceae. I know manual taxoboxes have zoodivisio and zoosectio to account for different placement of plant/animal division/section ranks in the taxonomic hierarchy. And there is a numeric value associated with the rank parameters recognized by manual taxoboxes that ensures they display the hierarchy in the right order. I guess the numeric value isn't used by automatic taxoboxes? The order in which ranks are displayed is determined solely by successive parent parameters?

Should there be a "zooseries" rank? Everything seems to be working OK with the plant/animal series templates I've linked above. I guess series isn't checked by Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks since it seems like putting series below both superfamily and sectio would be anomalous one way or the other. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops, realized everything is NOT quite working OK. Saturniiformes is italicized by the taxonomy template (which would be correct for the plant rank). Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Series is used inconsistently and isn't checked by Module:Autotaxobox (it's commented out on line 821). It is italicised because of Template:Is italic taxon which italicises series, subseries, and section ranks.
 * A zooseries rank would make sense if there was a need and it was used consistently. Template:Taxonomy/Saturniiformes is used for families Saturniidae and Lemoniidae in Bombycoidea. However, no other series are used in Bombycoidea and the template was created in 2010 with no source. The parent source doesn't use series and Lemoniidae is no longer recognised. I think it can be deleted after changing  Template:Taxonomy/Saturniidae. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed the parent on Saturniidae, so Template:Taxonomy/Saturniiformes will be unnecessary when the change propagates. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the taxonomy of Lepidoptera and cleared out all the old suprafamiliar taxa (except for a few with articles). The taxonomy template heirarchy follows van Nieukerken et al (2011) at family and above, except for a few new families (which are sourced) and a couple I'm still thinking about whether to move or find an alternative source.—  Jts1882 &#124; talk 18:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Forma specialis taxa
I recently created a manual taxobox, which is more-or-less ok, at Puccinia coronata f. sp. avenae. There are more articles at this rank: see Category:Forma specialis taxa. The articles I've looked at use two main approaches to a taxobox: My recollection is that we discussed adding the rank of form/forma to and decided not to do so on the grounds that there would be few articles needing it and it would make the template yet more complicated. My preference, I think, is to accept that a forma specialis taxon should use a manual taxobox and revise to accept "forma_specialis" in addition to form/forma so that it can display e.g. "Forma specialis: P. coronata f.sp. avenae".
 * Alternaria alternata f.sp. cucurbitae uses a manual taxobox, but wrongly since "Alternaria alternata f.sp. cucurbitae" is a trinomial name, not a binomial name.
 * Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. asparagi uses, which (a) is meant for ICZN names – is used for ICNafp names (b) has "Subspecies: F. o. f.sp. pisi" which is clearly wrong.

What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There are a handful of articles on bacteria with different infraspecific ranks. Some are in Category:Pathovars. Bacterial blight of cotton is a pathovar using Paraphyletic group with custom parameters for the rank. El Tor is a strain, and Escherichia coli NC101 is a serotype, both also using the paraphyletic group template. I think custom rank parameters may be the way to go, perhaps in Automatic taxobox, since that already has support for custom genus/species/binomials. May also be worth considering whether Wikipedia should even have articles for some of these "taxa". Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Custom rank parameters are implemented in via 's Module:Biota infobox. It can be driven from a differently named template for clarity, but on reflection, this is the best way forward, since Jts1882 has already done almost all the work needed.
 * the custom connecting terms appear in smaller font, which isn't the format we use.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now modified Module:Biota infobox so that it doesn't put connecting terms, like "var." or "f.sp." in smaller font. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created as a more obviously titled front-end to Module:Biota infobox for special infraspecific ranks. So far I've not found any problems. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now converted a few articles to use, which can be checked:
 * Bacterial blight of cotton
 * El Tor (should, I think, be at "Vibrio cholerae str. El Tor" or at least "Vibrio cholerae El Tor")
 * Escherichia coli NC101
 * Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. asparagi
 * Puccinia coronata f. sp. avenae ("f.sp." without a space seems more common)
 * I see two issues, which are illustrated by the last example, Puccinia coronata f. sp. avenae:
 * The extra/special rank line in the taxobox just has the epithet, but should be preceded by the abbreviated species name plus connecting term: compare the Variety and Forma specialis rows.
 * The trinomial box should contain only the last (lowest) infraspecific rank – using all four makes it a "quadrinomial" (and is wrong under the ICNafp).
 * I won't attempt to alter the code for these issues; it needs input from . Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Replies and comments:
 * I'm trying to remember why the infraspecies_rank1 was left bare in the taxobox rather than including the abbreviate species name. For the strain in El Tor it seems reasonable. Should this be V. cholerae str. El Tor (i.e. the abbreviated trinomial name) or does it need different treatment?
 * The trinomia/quadrinomial point is noted. I was unaware of the ICNafp convention.
 * On using the small text for the connecting terms, I saw this somewhere and thought it a nice convention. It's similar to using small for authorities, in that is makes the different parts of the name clearer, even though its not a convention used much (or at all?) outside Wikipedia. I've no problem with the change, though.
 * I'll have a look at making the changes when I have time to properly check the results. That bit of code is tricky, not helped by my choice of parameter names, which in retrospect are a bit confusing. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the trinomial is now correct (no quadrinomial terms). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to add abbreviated species names (i.e. G. s.) in infraspecies rows of the taxon hierarchy. Is this as wanted? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I noticed a couple parameters that aren't supported, species_link and type_strain, although I'm not certain they should be supported.


 * In the absence of species_link, bacterial blight of cotton links to a redirect in the species line (Xanthomonas axonopodis redirects to Citrus canker). In that case the solution is probably to create an article for Xanthomonas axonopodis; citrus canker is pv. citri, so there should be an article for the species that has pathovars infecting citrus, cotton and cassava. And I suspect in most cases where we have an article at the common name (of a disease), the title will refer a particular host, in which case there should probably be an article at the species title with subarticles for f.sp./pv. taxa that infect particular hosts. So species_link may not be needed at all.


 * Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris had a type strain in the manual taxobox which I've retained, but it doesn't display. Infraspecific ranks aren't governed by the rules of the prokaryote code, although it does have recommendations on how to use them. Given that they aren't subject to the rules of the code, I'm not sure that a designation of a type strain really applies, so type_strain may not be needed either. Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * looks good to me too – thanks for the changes.
 * I agree that we should always have a species article for things like f.sp./pv. taxa – and in many cases I suspect that it's better to deal with the subtaxa in that article, rather than creating separate ones. It's not something I interested in working on though – I only got involved because Puccinia coronata f. sp. avenae had been showing up for quite a while in the missing taxobox subcategory of Category:Taxobox cleanup which I monitor regularly, and it finally irritated me enough to try to fix it.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

has "Trinomial name" linking to Infraspecific name (botany), which is a redirect to Infraspecific name; the redirect should be bypassed (although I don't see much value in having that as a link at all (especially since it's inconsistent; manual taxoboxes for ranks above species and Automatic taxobox don't have a link like this, it's only for species (as "binomial name") and infraspecies)).

Manual taxoboxes for plant infraspecies also link to Infraspecific name (botany); see e.g. Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum. Manual taxoboxes for animal infraspecies link to trinomen (which redirects to Trinomial nomenclature); see e.g. Onithochiton neglectus neglectus. I'm not sure how related that is to the link in ; presumably the different links in plants vs. animals with manual taxoboxes is related to the logic that governs the taxobox color, but I just tested in an animal article and it linked to Infraspecific name (botany). Subspeciesbox and Infraspeciesbox both produce links to "trinomial nomenclature" (see e.g. Kamchatka brown bear and Paeonia daurica subsp. wittmanniana). Plantdrew (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The manual taxoboxes set the link based on the kingdom (see taxobox/core, line 148), which links to trinomen for animals or to Infraspecific name (botany) for plants and fungi. As I didn't have access to the kingdom, I used the zoological link when using subspeciesbox and the botanical link when using infraspeciesbox. The new template  uses the latter. However, I now see that both  and   link to Trinomial nomenclature, the deafult of the switch statement. Perhaps it would be best for all taxoboxes to use that link and remove the kingdom=specific links.
 * On the parameter comments above, type_strain should have been supported, but I hadn't allowed the parameter for the infraspeciesbox option. It now accepts the parameter with or without the underscore. I've added species_link and species_extinct and will add subspecies_link and subspecies_extinct when I find an example to test. As an aside, is parameter species_link needed, as there should be redirects for scientific names to common name page titles. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these updates/fixes. I guess the only justification for species_link is that some of us that have different display colours set for redirects, tend to see a redirect in taxobox as a possible error, so it's tidier to have all the links blue. I accept it's a marginal case. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Proposal to change parameter names.

Currently the parameters are:
 * infraspecies_rank1       – name of the taxon
 * infraspecies_rank1_name  – name of the rank
 * infraspecies_rank1_abbrev – abbreviation for separator

I find that confusing as {{para|infraspecies_rank1} can be read as the name of the rank rather than the name of the taxon. So I propose a change to:
 * infraspecies1_name       – name of the taxon
 * infraspecies1_rank       – name of the rank
 * infraspecies1_abbrev     – abbreviation for separator

I can make the code changes leaving the older names, which can be removed later. Or can someone suggest better names? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the existing parameter names aren't the best, and I prefer the proposed alternatives. It's also more consistent with other parameters to put the number on the first part of the parameter name as in image_caption and image2_caption or status_system and status2_system – although these examples suggest that the "1" parameters should have aliases without the "1" for full consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I Support the alternative parameter names. Plantdrew (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hovering over the "edit" link
When I hover over the scientific classification edit link in an automatic taxobox (the pencil icon), the mouseover text merely reads "e" instead of "edit". I don't know if this is intended (if so, it is somewhat confusing). If it isn't intended, could it please be fixed? The problem doesn't occur on speciesbox (where the mouseover text reads "edit"), but it is also present on oobox, as far as I can tell. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 16:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Automatic taxobox and speciesbox both set the mouseover text as a parameter, while subspeciesbox uses the default in Edit taxonomy, i.e. "Edit this classification". When discussing the change in the pencil icon, it was suggested we standardise and remove the custom options for the different taxobox templates. I think this is a good idea, using the default "Edit this classification", unless someone has a text suggestion. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why the mouseover text was a parameter; it goes way back to the creation of the automated taxobox system, so I've just left it when converting to Lua. I strongly agree that it should be removed and a standard text used: "Edit this classification" seems fine to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edit Edit taxonomy to remove the option for mouseover text and always show "Edit this classification".
 * However, the edit link is still required as it acts as a flag to display the icon in taxobox/core. An alternative would be to use parent as the flag as that is the parameter used to flag the classification hierarchy table. Then the parameter can be removed from the taxobox templates (and the function in the module for automatic taxoboxes). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think about eliminateing the edit link parameter? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm always reluctant to touch taxobox/core if it can be avoided, but it's odd to have this parameter when it no longer has a real use, so I agree – eliminate it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox class use in preloads
I'm working on a project to remove uses of the infobox class and came across the following pages. Can someone give me some insight into what the tables at right are being used for (in each, if necessary)? Izno (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Automatic taxobox/editintro/preload
 * 2) Automatic taxobox/editintro/preload/?
 * 3) Automatic taxobox/editintro/preload/??
 * 4) Automatic taxobox/editintro/preload/incertae sedis
 * 5) Automatic taxobox/editintro/sameas
 * 6) Automatic taxobox/floating intro
 * when an editor creates a taxonomy template, the first five provide a 'skeleton' to be filled in, appropriate to the kind of taxonomy template. E.g. if you created "Template:Taxonomy/FAMILY/?" (where FAMILY is replaced by the name of a family) the second would be used. The last provides the general introduction you get when creating a taxonomy template. Try clicking on Template:Taxonomy/Nonsense.
 * Do the tables with explanatory examples need ? Not that I can see; it's just the format chosen by  in 2011. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They are all ancillary templates for the taxobox system and most illustrate part of the taxobox output so use the same classes as the taxobox tables. The use of the  class was introduced in 2006 with this edit and the important use is now in taxobox/core. If the goal is to remove the CSS to templatestyles, is there (or will there be) a generic infobox/styles.css or should we create a  taxobox/styles.css that can be used in all the taxobox templates? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is already a Module:Infobox/styles.css, yes. It currently lacks the styles found in MediaWiki:Common.css. The objective however is not to call that directly, as doing so will be more work later down the road when I (or maybe some ambitious successor) attempt to change infoboxes to use HTML  rather than   (see also MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do). You can start thinking about that now if you want, but this template isn't the only one that would make that difficult right now, and I've been focusing on the easier cases (like the 4k uses in mainspace of the class directly and the non-infobox uses in the template/module spaces). Izno (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * most illustrate part of the taxobox output so use the same classes as the taxobox tables This is what I was trying to make sure I understood. Which of the 6 actually do that and which of the 6 are just "consistency with the others"/"pretty styling"? Izno (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * most illustrate part of the taxobox output so use the same classes as the taxobox tables This is what I was trying to make sure I understood. Which of the 6 actually do that and which of the 6 are just "consistency with the others"/"pretty styling"? Izno (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

30 June 2023 use stats update
30 June 2023 update

Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:

Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either Taxobox, or any of Automatic taxobox+Speciesbox+(Infraspeciesbox and/or Subspeciesbox (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for Virusbox rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool (https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles.

Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 220 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
 * Fossil taxa; fossil classifications may be derived from multiple sources and present classification on Wikipedia may include mutually incompatible hypotheses. Fossil taxa are often not be linked from extant parent taxa.
 * Synonymy; there is some obvious synonymy issue; e.g., a species is in a genus which redirects (as a synonym) to another genus; maybe the species article needs to be moved or maybe the genus should be reinstated
 * Common names; articles with common name titles may not correspond to taxa, but still have manual taxoboxes. In some cases Paraphyletic group may be appropriate, in others the taxobox should be removed
 * Parasite and pathogens; article on parasites and pathogens may be tagged for the WikiProject of the organisms they infect. Higher level taxonomy templates for the parasites may not yet exist, and the classification presented in manual taxoboxes may not be up to date.

Parrosaurus is the only dinosaur with a manual taxobox, may end up being merged. Solitudo is only turtle now (and not linked from stated parent Testudinidae) but Hoan Kiem turtle had a manual taxobox last time around and IMHO shouldn't have a taxobox of any kind. I don't know what's going on with beetles and Lepidoptera; the total for beetles is down by 7 since last time, and down by 32 for Lepidoptera. Perhaps a bunch of articles on synonyms have been merged, or maybe I made a mistake in my last update. Primates has total articles down by 1. The -1 value for bivalve manual taxoboxes removed means that there is one more article with a manual taxobox than last time. For protists -4 is due to more articles being tagged for the project (many relevant articles are still untagged).

Progress the last 6 months was slower than it has ever been since I started tracking "# manual subtracted" (in June 2021), and is likely slower than it has been since I began these reports in 2017. I had been responsible for a large number of manual subtractions due to my efforts to implement automatic taxoboxes for plants, but plants are almost done now so my contributions have dwindled (although I still am making some efforts to implement automatic taxoboxes in various groups of organisms). Progress on fish had been stalled for awhile but picked back up in the last 6 months.

I have some detailed notes breaking remaining plant manual taxoboxes down by family at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. Less detailed notes at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress that break animals down by phylum, and insects and fishes by order. Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for policy regarding lists of synonyms; chronological > alphabetical
Presently, the only guidance I can find regarding the format for a list of synonyms is here, and as a practicing taxonomist, I find the given example runs exactly counter to the convention in all scientific catalogues of names. That is, in catalogues (print catalogues, not databases), synonyms are always given in chronological order, never alphabetical. The example given puts the two names in alphabetical order, rather than chronological. That approach is confusing, to be honest, and not nearly as useful as a chronological listing. This is increasingly important as the list of names gets longer. It is also especially important when one or more of the names in the list of synonyms is OLDER than the name in use for the taxon; this situation in taxonomy is rare, and it is especially noteworthy, but it is only readily visible when the list is chronological. I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should expressly adopt a policy to follow chronological order for lists of synonyms, as there does not presently appear to be any formal policy at all, and in the absence of an existing policy, perhaps establishing one will not be controversial. If necessary, I can raise this topic over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, but this seems like the correct place to start the discussion, at least. Dyanega (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I too prefer the advantages of the chronological listing of synonyms, and would support changing the format in the example listing, and stating there explicitly that this is the desired format. Esculenta (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I haven't paid much attention to how Species Fungorum arranges synonyms. I see there's one view with them alphabetical and another with them chronological (and with homotypic synonyms grouped together). Is the chronological order a recent feature? Is the alphabetical order something that will be maintained or discontinued? Are the chronological views (GSD) available for all species? I'm confused why the record for Anaptychia ciliaris has a link (only) to the alphabetical list and the record for Aspergillus glaucus has a link (only) to the chronological/GSD list (although lists in both arrangements exist for both species and can be found by pasting the appropriate ID into the appropriate URL for a particular arrangement). Plantdrew (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really know the details, but it looks like in cases where Species Fungorum get their synonymy data from external Global Species Databases, they get ordered chronologically, with each entry linked. If the synonymy data comes from Index Fungorum, it's in alphabetical order and not linked. I hadn't even noticed before that both arrangements could be had with different URLs, so thanks for pointing that out (I will definitely be linking to the "better" synonymy list from now on). Esculenta (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is best raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life where the most amount of eyes will see it and will encompass the ICNafp editors as well, rather then possibly missing them.-- Kev min  § 19:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The example isn't alphabetical OR chronological. I think this would be better to discuss at TOL (while the page is watched by ICNafp editors, I'm not sure that the proposal was made with ICNafp editors in mind; the arrangement of a chronological list would appear un-intuitive if dates are omitted, and synonym lists in plant articles rarely include dates). Plantdrew (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that botanists omitted the years from synonym lists. That would certainly change the recommended policy based on Kingdom. So, your recommendation is to start a thread on WT:TOL, then? Dyanega (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be at TOL for visibility needs.-- Kev min  § 22:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , botanists do include years in the types of publications I think you're referring to (revisions, monographs, etc.) and do order synonyms chronologically in those publications. Lists of synonyms in Wikipedia articles on plants don't typically include years (and are generally sourced from databases that arrange synonyms alphabetically, and which may not include years (or any publication details) in the view of the synonyms of a particular accepted species (the database may have year/publication details if you click through to the record for a particular synonym). Sorting lists of plant synonyms chronologically would entail significant effort in adding years to the lists before the list could even be re-sorted. For animals, the years would already be present as part of the standard zoological authority citation. Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The synonym section in the taxobox often isn't used for a formal list of synonyms, at least for higher taxa. Often or possibly most of the time it's just some of the more common ones. Would this policy encourage putting complete synonym lists in the taxobox? While I prefer chronological order as it provides information on the history, a lot of the commonly used sources are databases that use alphabetical order. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New thread has been started, Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Template deletes?
Is there a way to delete taxonomy templates that are no longer in use? The fungal family Arthopyreniaceae is now considered to be a synonym of Trypetheliaceae, so we no longer need its associated taxonomy template. MeegsC (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Blank the code and add the template to Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Small bug with display_parents
In this edit of Arbutus andrachne, display_parents had the value as Arbutoideae. The taxobox displays subfamily Arbutoideae, which is 2 parents up from the species. I experimented a little, and it appears that any (?) non-numeric value for display_parents results in displaying 2 parents (I tried alphabetic and non-alphanumeric characters). It's not a big deal, but it is strange behavior. Plantdrew (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like the expression (#expr) on line 46 of speciesbox returns an error when there is not a number and that is passed to the module as value of display_taxa instead of the default zero. The  at line 111 of Module:Autotaxobox returns nil rather than the expected/default zero and that sets   to 2 instead of 1, which is the intended default for speciesbox, whereas in Module:Automated_taxobox display_taxa defaults 1, which sets   to 2. The fix needs to be in speciesbox and the expression error. Those parse functions are horrible to deal with. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Should clades be included in this template? If so, where?
I recently came across the Wikipedia article for clades, and a lot of Wikipedia articles for the Tree of life are missing this more modern take on taxonomy. I think it should probably be part of a template, but I'm not sure how it should be laid out. It would be great if an editor with more knowledge or official authority on this topic could comment on this. Galactiger (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The taxonomy templates accept "clade" as a rank, which is used extensively. See, e.g., the classification at Template: Taxonomy/Dinosauria. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand moth genus Rhathamictis
I've attempted to create a taxonomic template for this genus but for some reason it doesn't seem to be generating correctly. Could someone more knowledgable than me suggest ways in which I can rectify this? Thanks in advance for the assistance. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ambrosia10, I just think you had the breaks wrong. Fixed now. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! Much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not allowed to create new template for new article
Hi, I'm trying to make a taxonomy template for my first article Bubodens, but when I try to create it I get a permission error with "Due to the high impact of editing taxonomy templates, it has been decided to disallow new users to edit them...." How can I get this taxonomy template made for my page? Mojoceratops66 (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw your draft was accepted and created the speciesbox. You can always use the old manual taxobox system, and someone (like me) will come along and make the automated version. Or ping me and I'll be happy to do it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Mojoceratops66 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You can also ping me. Actually, if you just leave an article with a non-functioning automated taxobox (I understand why editors are reluctant to do this), the article will appear in one or more of the subcategories of Category:Taxobox cleanup, which a number of us monitor regularly, and the taxobox will get fixed. After you've been editing a while you will be able to create taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

30 December 2023 use stats update
30 December update

Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:

Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either Taxobox, or any of Automatic taxobox+Speciesbox+(Infraspeciesbox and/or Subspeciesbox (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for Virusbox rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool (https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles.

Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 207 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
 * Fossil taxa; fossil classifications may be derived from multiple sources and present classification on Wikipedia may include mutually incompatible hypotheses. Fossil taxa are often not be linked from extant parent taxa.
 * Synonymy; there is some obvious synonymy issue; e.g., a species is in a genus which redirects (as a synonym) to another genus; maybe the species article needs to be moved or maybe the genus should be reinstated
 * Common names; articles with common name titles may not correspond to taxa, but still have manual taxoboxes. In some cases Paraphyletic group may be appropriate, in others the taxobox should be removed
 * Parasite and pathogens; article on parasites and pathogens may be tagged for the WikiProject of the organisms they infect. Higher level taxonomy templates for the parasites may not yet exist, and the classification presented in manual taxoboxes may not be up to date.

The template for the Bats taskforce was merged into the template for WikiProject Mammals since my last update. I can't track bats separately anymore, but they had been at 100% automatic taxoboxes for a couple years now. WikiProject Protista is slowly being added to more articles; there has been an increase in the number of tagged protist articles with manual taxoboxes. Primates has one less article than it did last time; perhaps a taxon has been lumped and an article merged.

All projects are now over 50% automatic taxoboxes and the majority are now over 90%.

I have some detailed notes breaking remaining plant manual taxoboxes down by family at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. Less detailed notes at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress that break animals down by phylum, and insects and fishes by order. Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you numbers on the number of new manual taxoboxes added, what percentage of all new taxoboxes they make, and the projects still using them? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , there isn't any easy way to get new manual taxoboxes by WikiProject. A PetScan search for articles with taxoboxes sorted by "not at all"/descending shows recently created articles. Of the most recent 20, 7 are moths, 3 fungi, 3 beetles, 2 arthropods, 2 eukaryote incertae sedis, 1 gastropod, 1 insect (Hymenoptera), and 1 (fossil) bird. Single editors (different ones) were responsible for 6 of the moths, 3 beetles, 2 fungi, 2 arthropods and 2 eukaryotes. 8 of the 20 are species and 12 are higher taxa.
 * 82 articles with manual taxoboxes were created between 30 June 2023 and 30 December 2023. Assuming the difference between # auto added and # manual subtracted represents newly created articles (it mostly should), 2874 articles with automatic taxoboxes were created since June 2023. 82+2874=2956. 82 is 2.8% of 2956. Existing articles do occasionally get converted from automatic taxoboxes to manual by editors who want to update the classification without understanding how taxonomy templates work, but that number is negligible.
 * I guess the take away is that there are a small number of editors creating articles with manual taxoboxes, and they are mostly working in groups where uptake of automatic taxoboxes is relatively low. Groups with low uptake of automatic taxoboxes are going to be missing many taxonomy templates needed to create speciesboxes, but the articles being created with manual taxoboxes are mostly higher taxa, so having taxonomy templates in place probably isn't going to help very much (of the 8 species in the most recent 20, only 1 was in a genus that has an existing taxonomy template). Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7214 articles were created with manual taxoboxes since 10 April 2017, which is when I started tracking stats on automatic taxoboxes. That was a little after automatic taxobox use really started to take off (but well before it was the norm; 13.2% of articles had an automatic taxobox at that point). So less than 10% of articles with manual taxoboxes were created after concerted efforts to use automatic taxoboxes began (obviously there are some articles that were created since 2017 with manual taxoboxes that have now been converted). Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess a better date to pick would be 30 August 2018, when the RFC about preferring automatic taxoboxes closed. There are 3970 articles created with manual taxoboxes (and which still have them) since 30 August 2018. Plantdrew (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Aquaterraves‎
Is there any precedent on taxoboxes for 'hypothetical' taxons? I guess they're all hypothetical at some level. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is precedent; see e.g. Eocyte hypothesis and Articulata hypothesis (there's relevant discussion going on at Template_talk:Taxonbar, with the newly created Wikidata item stemming from that). I'm not sure that the precedent needs to be followed if something is really framed as a hypothesis (i.e., we might consider removing those taxoboxes).
 * It gets more complicated with Tactopoda and Antennopoda, which are framed as "proposed clades", but which represent mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding the relationship of tardigrades, arthropods and onychophorans.
 * Avifilopluma is another weird one. It was the last article tagged for WikiProject Dinosaurs to get an automatic taxobox. It is the clade of feathered animals, with feathers not being precisely defined, and it not being clear exactly which taxa would be included. Plantdrew (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, will leave alone for the moment. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are articles for Columbaves, Inopinaves and Aequorlitornithes (all from Prum et al, 2015), as well as Columbea and Passerea (from Jarvis et al 2014). Gruimorphae also has one, as do the more questionable Otidae and Gruae. While I think it is useful to have short articles clearly defining these proposals, perhaps the Neoaves article could be expanded discuss the alternative arrangements, which are currently shown in he cladograms. I think this new proposal certainly should be covered. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Automatic links to species, commons, data
Any interest in adding automatic links to wikispecies, commons categories and galleries, and wikidata at the bottom of our taxboxes to improve integration with our sister projects? Compare hr:Dracaena aethiopica / en:Dracaena aethiopica. Coded in hr:Template:Taksokvir (note the four tracking categories). Ponor (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We use taxonbar to link to various taxon IDs, including wikidata, wikispecies, etc. All of the IDs are stored at Wikidata. We could consider adding commons and gallery to the taxonbar. thoughts on this? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of a more prominent place. Taxonbar, to me, is something that experienced editors might need, it's not very friendly to our readers. It's also not shown to >2/3 of them Ponor (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of duplicating the effect in the taxobox, we can perhaps work to make the taxonbar available on mobile. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate side-effects to that would include:
 * people complaining about WP:OVERLINKING
 * people removing Commons, Commons category, etc., due to the presence of a link in Taxonbar
 * I don't agree with this behavior, but it happens relatively often.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not against an unobtrusive addition at the bottom of the taxobox. However, as an infobox, the taxobox is supposed to summarize information on the taxon, so it is probably better for links to other resources to be elsewhere.
 * There was a previous discussion about including wikispecies and commons in the taxonbar or only using the templates Commons category and Wikispecies to avoid redundancy. In the end the status quo was kept (with Wikispecies in the taxonbar). I'm not adverse to adding the commons gallery or commons category.
 * The taxonbar doesn't appear on mobile because it uses Navbox, which is not allowed on mobile view for some reason (possibly because you can't collapse large navboxes or they are condised too large for downloading on phones). I believe there were some proposed changes aimed at making a mobile compliant navbox. do you know anything on this? It would certainly be possible to make an alternative output for the taxonbar without using navbox, although this may go against decisions made elsewhere for such content (e.g. authority control). — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mobile & style issues are sort of a black box to me. My impression is that there's a desire, and some work being done, to, at some point, make navboxes viewable on mobile, but I don't keep up with that at all. I don't know of another navbox-like utility (not that I've looked for one). If there were a flag or something in Lua that would designate a user's device as mobile or non-mobile, then an alternate method could be used (even something dumb like an un/ordered list, assuming consensus, etc., etc.).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way of detecting the skin in Lua. It can only be done in JS or CSS. Without Wikimedia support, this means any solution must use CSS, which can be customised for different skins (including the mobile one, Minerva). I'm not sure how Navboxes are blocked in Mobile view, but I assume it's server side, as the HTML code for navbox is not on the page (although strangely their templatestyles is). An alternative output could mimick the navbox styles and hav different displays for mobile and desktop (or narrow and wide screen).
 * An alternative output from taxonbar shouldn't be too difficult. I did some experimenting in the module sandbox some time ago, using horizontal and vertical lists, with collapsible options. However, it would be good to find out what Wikimedia plans are for navboxes and mobile. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Taxonbar appears to be overpopulated, uncurated, containing numerous links to, from a reader's perspective, low-quality sites (database dumps); on mobile devices this would be one half of the screen full of some links. On the other hand, I know that a link to the commons category/gallery will take me to moderately well-curated images of the species, which are made and heavily used by us. Since our articles don't have more than a picture of two, and many readers probably want to see more, I am still not convinced that adding a wikispecies link and one or two commons links would be a bad idea, as unobtrusive as we want it to be. While the taxobox is intended to summarize information on the taxon (meaning: classification), we already deviate from this by incorporating images, statuses, and range maps. Should this be discussed anywhere else? Can we BOLDly add it and wait for the avalanche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponor (talk • contribs)
 * Back in the old days, we did try putting those links in the taxobox. It got shot down. This is why Tom said what he did above. Those were the arguements against. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Taxonbar links are curated to some extent. We've decided not to include databases published by governments of non-English speaking countries. And there are many Wikidata properties for taxonomic databases that aren't included in taxonbars (where there has never been any discussion to include or exclude them).
 * I'm against including (potentially) 4 links to Wikispecies in desktop view. Currently links appear in the desktop sidebar, in the taxonbar, and via Wikispecies (if present). A link the in the taxobox would be a fourth. Sidebar and taxonbar links don't appear in mobile view. It would be good to enable links to Wikispecies and Commons in mobile in some way aside from Wikispecies and Commons. Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur, PD.
 * Let's see if I can sum up. There's a desire for links to Wikispecies/CommonsCats/CommonsGal/Wikidata to be available to mobile users, if they exist. Taxonbar is where these are already present in desktop, but is suppressed in mobile, as is the sidebar where some of these links are present in desktop. Links to CC, CG and WS should be listed on WD, if they exist. So it seems that only a link to WD would suffice, though providing all four would ease the burden on the user to click through WD to get to the others.
 * This seems to be our list of current options, though they weren't all stated above:
 * Add these links as originally requested to the Taxobox system.
 * Add these links as originally requested to the Taxobox system, but have them appear only for mobile users; so CSS or JS changes
 * Tweak the CSS or JS (or ?) so that the Taxonbar appears on mobile
 * Tweak the CSS or JS (or ?) so that the Taxonbar appears on mobile, but in a limited form with just WS/CC/CG/WD, if available.
 * Option 1 is ruled out by history. It's a good ask, but I don't think it will ever see traction. All the rest, as far as I can figure, need someone who can tweak the CSS or JS so that the good magic happens. Do we need to poke elsewhere for CSS/JS/? support on this? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another option is to create a simple template that displays a box with the wikimedia links that only displays on mobile. If could be floated right below the taxobox or placed at the bottom of the page instead of the taxonbar. The taxobox or taxonbar templates could be used to place it automatically. It can be given a class so that it will only be shown in mobile (the CSS would be set using templatestyles). — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A summary of relevant differences between desktop and mobile views (mostly redundant with above discussion).
 * Template taxonbar is only shown in desktop, so mobile views don't get information that is exclusive to taxonbar.
 * In desktop, Wikispecies is shown in sidebar, taxonbar (if other identifiers) and in template Wikispecies or Wikispecies-inline (if present).
 * In mobile, Wikispecies is only shown if template Wikispecies or Wikispecies-inline is on the page.
 * In desktop, the Commons gallery or category is shown in the sidebar and in in template Commons or Commons-inline or Commons category
 * In mobile, Commons gallery or category is only shown if template Commons or Commons-inline or Commons category is only page.
 * Normally only one of the Commons gallery or category is linked. Both the sidebar and the commons templates show the gallery if it exists and the category if there is no gallery. Both can be linked if Commons category is also added.
 * In short, mobile users need the wikispecies and commons templates if they are to see wikimedia links. Some numbers:
 * There are 314,455 pages with speciesbox. 25,328 have Wikispecies, 7,403 have Wikispecies-inline, 22,989 have Commons, 4,059 have Commons-inline and 16,686 have Commons category (with 28 of them having one of the other commons templates)
 * There are 78,809 pages with automatic taxobox. 5,260 have Wikispecies, 4,371 have Wikispecies-inline, 1,955 have Commons, 1,732 have Commons-inline and 6,487 have Commons category (5 with both gallery and category links)
 * There are 64,226 pages with taxobox. 3,415 have Wikispecies, 563 have Wikispecies-inline, 2,550 have Commons, 107 have Commons-inline and 1,611 have Commons category (2 with both gallery and category links)
 * There are 461,962 pages with taxonbar. 34,305 have Wikispecies, 12,474 have Wikispecies-inline, 27,586 have Commons, 5,926 have Commons-inline and 25,121 have Commons category (39 with both gallery and category links)
 * In short, only about 10% of the pages on taxa have the wikimedia link templates. I thought it would be higher. A taxobox or taxonbar solution is easier than adding the wikimedia templates.— <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)