Template talk:Taxobox: Difference between revisions

Tree of Life Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Taxobox is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Archives

See also Wikipedia talk: taxobox usage

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Can this badboy be modified to support ichnotaxa, ootaxa, and the like? Abyssal (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a great idea. Parataxa should, if anything, get a totally different template. Too many people are already under the mistaken impression that say, Grallator is the name of an animal, and not the name of a particular set of shapes left in the mud by a variety of different animals, both known and unknown. For example, Grallator-type tracks from Triassic New Jersey were probably made by a coelophysid. Grallator from the Yixian formation closely match, and were probably made by, some species of Caudipteryx. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind for how a "parataxabox" should look like? Abyssal (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just basic info, name, authority, temporal range etc. Do parataxa even exist above the family level? Are there 'ichnophyla' or something? MMartyniuk (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using this as a guide, I managed to come up with the following rough structure (I didn't actually put them all together, just ran through the list compiling something that appeared coherent with the structure suggested):

Ichnostem Ichnosuperclass Ichnoclass Ichnosubclass Ichnoinfraclass Ichnodivision Ichnosubdivision Ichnoinfradivision Ichnomagnorder Ichnosuperorder Ichnograndorder Ichnomicrorder Ichnoorder Ichnosuborder Ichnoinfraorder Ichnoparvorder Ichnosuborder Ichnoinfraorder Ichnoparvorder Ichnosuperfamily Ichnofamily Ichnosubfamily Ichnogenus Ichnosubgenus Ichnospecies Ichnosubspecies

Note in particular the suborder within the parvorder.

I also ended up with the ichnostem-group, ranked somewhere above above the ichnoinfraclass, as well as ichnolegion>ichnosublegion>ichnosupercohort>ichnocohort, all ranked somewhere above ichnomagnorder. Hope this helps.

I don't know of any oology references, just happened to remember this ichnology one from earlier browsing sessions. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Automatic taxobox can support ranks with arbitrary names, so could be used to provide ichnotaxoboxes with no modifications. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago I included a taxonomy in two such articles, but it was quickly removed by someone from the Dinosaur WikiProject. However, I used order/family/genus, etc...instead of specifying icho-whatever. Before doing anything, I'd run it past the others at the project if I were you since at least one of them had a problem with what I did. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed at least one of those. Placing a form taxon in Dinosauria, for example, is simply incorrect. If ichnotaxa were used for all ranks I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the ichnostem would link to {{Taxonomy/Life}}. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, it would link to "Taxonomy:Ichnolife" or something :) An ichnospecies isn't a living thing, it's a category like Mineralia. A taxobox for Grallator should be treated the same way as a taxobox for Pyrite. In fact, that mineral infobox may be a better basis for parataxa, emphasizing the characteristics of the object over its arbitrary classification. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...would you care to create a sample of what this ichnobox might look like? It would help if you included all the non-rank parameters you'd like included, such as diversity, authority, and anything else that might belong in it. If you can't get it to display properly a simple MS Paint job would do the trick. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know nearly enough about ichnology to even attempt it... we need a footprint/egg/burrow person to address this, I think.MMartyniuk (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know any? I don't. Perhaps for now I'll just focus on making it display the taxonomy. In my "spare time", the {{ichnobox}} will be on my list of things to work on over Christmas break, using the automatic taxobox as a guide. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattmart's proposal reaks of original research or NPOV violations, trying to shift emphasis away from how actual ichnologist classify actual trace fossils. I'm still going to support a taxabox-derived infobox since actual ichnological classification systems are based on the Linnaean system. Abyssal (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never said we couldn't/shouldn't also list the taxonomy. But placing Ichnostem Whatever in a higher taxon shared with real taxa doesn't seem right. Is that how actual ichnologists do it? (I have to admit it seems completely absurd that scientists in the 21st Century still use such a system to classify trace fossils. But if that's the way it is, that's the way it is.) MMartyniuk (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean words like "ichnofamily," "ichnogenus," "oospecies," and that sort of thing? Yes, that's actually how its done. Abyssal (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a working template: {{ichnobox}}. I've debuted it at Discosauriscidae and Grallator. If needed, it can actually link to zoological taxa by changing the "Ichnos" link at the stem taxon to the appropriate one. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but "Scientific Classification" should link to something like ichnology or parataxonomy or something like that. Abyssal (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I noticed the link parameter isn't getting italicized. I'll hopefully get around to looking at that tonight. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Get italic link might be what you're looking for. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{taxonomy}} was the culprit. Anyway, {{ichnobox}} and {{oobox}} are ready for testing. I've implemented a few ichnoboxes, and I'm hesitating to implement the ooboxes mainly due to the controversy it may cause-- the reference I've found here incorporates actual taxa into the Veterovata system, making them relevant, and I don't doubt the validity, but I know a few editors might get upset seeing taxa amidst parataxa. Please leave feedback on the individual templates, as well as bug reports, at Template talk:Ichnobox and Template talk:Oobox. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an announcement that Template:Automatic taxobox now seems to be able to support a broad sample of taxonomic oddities, and its code should have stabilized. The template should now be suitable for widespread use; comments on rolling this out are welcome at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Ready_to_release.3F. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the value of |subdivision_ranks= ever be wikilinked? I note that it isn't in the documentatioin, but is in many articles. It seems inconsistent to wikilink this, but not the other ranks in the taxobox (regnum, phylum, classis etc). The link, in my eyes, does not add any value; the taxobox makes it clear what taxonomic level is in question, and if someone doesn't understand what a species is (for example) then they aren't going to understand the taxobox at all — the link to Scientific classification already provided will be much more useful to them. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always linked it, though you raise an interesting point. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always linked to it, too. I think it's especially important with lesser-known subdivisions, like section (botany) or series (botany). I agree that it's inconsistent with the non-linked ranks in the classification section, but I think it's more important than the ranks at or above the article's taxon (which will likely be explained in the article text, e.g. "Foobar is an infraorder...") because it's giving the context for the subdivisions of the article's taxon. I suppose I'd be ok with it either way, but it appears to be the common practice and I don't see a pressing need to change that. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we allow for both the IUCN and CITES conservation status to be used in a taxobox? At present, it appears that you may use only one or the other. For many species, both classifications are meaningful and should be summarized. For instance, the five species of slow loris are all CITES Appendix I, but four are classified by the IUCN as VU and one is EN. Their IUCN Red List status aside, their CITES status is a recent change (2007) and was seen as a very important factor for their conservation. (I'm writing an entire article about the topic and hope to publish soon.)

Also I'm not sure if "Threatened with extinction" is needed under "Appendix I" because it's stated on the CITES article that the status points to. Not only that, but Appendix I means much more than just that the species is threatened. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including a second conservation status is probably doable. I'll have a quick look and see if it's something that can be done quickly. If not, it may have to wait as long as summer before I can get around to it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a quick fix, I'd think a simple conditional statement should work to prevent unlikely doubles. For example, you could have an "CITES" optional parameter that displays based on "AppI" or "AppII" values, but also won't display if the "status" parameter is already set to CITES. The "Threatened with extinction" line will definitely not be needed in this case for Appendix I because it will likely be paired with an IUCN rating. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters |status2=, |status2_system=, and |status2_ref= are now supported, but I've not implemented your suggested error checking as I don't think it is really necessary. As for the APP I needing "threatened" following it, that's a fairly simple edit-- but it might be a controversial one. Probably an RfC would be appropriate. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Unsorted Error: No RfC category specified When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Proposed change: Eliminate "Threatened with extinction" from the Appendix I CITES conservation status in taxoboxes.

Affected pages: {{Taxobox/species}}

Current code segment:

| CITES_A1 = '''[[CITES]] Appendix I'''<br />[[Threatened species|Threatened with extinction]]

Proposed change:

| CITES_A1 = [[CITES]] Appendix I

or

| CITES_A1 = '''[[CITES]] Appendix I'''

or related change. Please discuss.

1. Sounds good to me, although I have no experience with CITES. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support: see comments below. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I agree with the rational provided. Though I only ever use IUCN. ZooPro 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated above in the post that started it all, CITES Appendix I means much more than just that the species is threatened. Not only that, but the CITES article (to which the status links) already mentions the "threatened species" information. Anyway, not all species covered under CITES Appendix I are threatened, or even vulnerable. All lemurs are listed, but several species of mouse lemur are classified by the IUCN as "Least concern". Yes, they are still threatened by habitat loss and many things, and I'm very thankful for the protection, but the link seems like an insufficient summary, is inaccurate, and in some cases, redundant (when IUCN status is already set as threatened or endangered). If anything, maybe we could make an alternative parameter to include the text, such as "CITES_A1_Threatened". – VisionHolder « talk » 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In case anyone needed it, there is now an example of the inconsistency at Ring-tailed Lemur. The species is listed by the IUCN is "Near Threatened", but the CITES status says it's "Threatened with extinction". – VisionHolder « talk » 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be an error when trying to label a species's status as "data deficient" pls refer to Burton's Gerbil for an example.

I planted an error in {{Taxobox/core}} a little while ago; since then it's been pointed out and I've resolved it. Does the gerbil article still have the problem, or was it linked to that bug? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all better :) --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Great! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my uneducated eye, the taxobox template seems to be causing an error at the top of several articles like Alseuosmiaceae. It says "{{if:|}}" at the top of these pages. Is that something someone here knows how to fix?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks for the timely error report. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Much appreciated!--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason "status_ref" (or "status2_ref") doesn't appear when using the CITES status system. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

[1] Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Someday when you have more time, I think we need to overhaul this conservation status stuff. Let me know when you get to that point. But otherwise, thanks for the help so far. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. And yup, I'm busy with college at the moment. Hopefully once I graduate I'll have more time for more projects like these. Right now I'm just hanging around here for quick fixes and emergency ops; these help keep the skills fresh. I am curious as to what sort of overhaul you've got in mind. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes wouldn't be too severe. What I was thinking was possibly adding a few extra tidbits for display with IUCN status (assessment year & trend) and CITES status (assessment year). Of course, adding extra parameters makes them different from the alternative status systems. They should probably be set up as stand-alone, optional parameters, leaving a third "status_alt" for the others. My reasoning is that the IUCN status is probably the most widely used, while CITES use should hopefully pick up now that it doesn't have to fight for space with the IUCN status system. In fact, I hope to make time to start adding CITES information to many mammalian taxoboxes sometime after the RfC passes. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected|Template:Taxobox}}
28-Jan-2011: The taxonomy infobox, Template:Taxobox, needs to be corrected to omit the new top/bottom "<div>" tags, added at the end of November last year, during the massive change to use {Taxobox/core} inside. Those div-tags are preventing text from wrapping alongside the box, when images are stacked below the taxobox. The troublesome div-tags were added 29 November 2010, during a series of edit-revert cycles, in this edit: Taxo-edit-adding-div. So many things changed when using {Taxobox/core}, I don't think people realized the div-tags would block the text-wrapping in current articles (such as "Elephant"). IMPACT: Correcting a 2-month issue. This is a fix to restore the prior text-formatting of all articles with images stacked below {Taxobox}. The test below shows the style of text-gap which will be fixed.

TEST FOR <DIV> TAGS: This text is above the Taxobox.

After the "<div>" tags are removed from {Taxobox}, then this text here will be displayed alongside the elephant's Taxobox, rather than pushed below to align only with the elephant-skeleton photo. Infoboxes should not be surrounded by <div> tags, so the typesetting around images can be automatic, to allow wrapping text from below any images stacked under an infobox, and not have a text-gap to the left-side of an infobox.

Text-gaps, such as caused by the div-tags, are very common on Wikipedia (due to new users stacking images which block text-wrapping). Hence, this 2-month problem of text-gaps was something users often see in many, many other articles, as similar to typical new images which should be staggered (left-or-right) to avoid large text-gaps on wide windows. With all the other changes being made for {Taxobox/core}, it was easy to overlook this issue among all the others being handled. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its a browser issue because on mine, your text is alongside the taxobox, not the image. Please clarify. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The div tag was added so that white space didn't appear above the taxobox. Please introduce an alternative solution to this before removing the "div"s. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see the issue as well. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the documentation, 'unranked_X' is always displayed above 'X'. This does not appear to be true for 'unranked_divisio' which displays below 'divisio' in tests I've done. Can this be corrected please? (There's a temporary example at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox#Work_for_polysporangiophytes.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fix it, except that I have no idea how many articles are using both |divisio= and |unranked_divisio= parameters and would therefore need corrected. Correcting the documentation will be less messy. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm doing it. I've added a cleanup category at Category:Articles employing both divisio and unranked_divisio. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnnd I'm having technical difficulties getting that category to work properly. It's currently categorizing every single taxobox on Wikipedia as having both parameters, which is clearly not true. If anyone wants to take a look at it and see what's going on, be my guest. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware that was the appropriate syntax; thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

All articles featuring both parameters have now been updated appropriately. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on this! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if the treatment of 'unranked_X' were generalized, so that every rank 'X' automatically gets an 'unranked_X' by default. (If it can be coded, this would also be simpler.) At present it's a bit random as to which ranks can be "hidden" by the use of 'unranked_' (e.g. I wanted to use 'unranked_superdivisio', but it doesn't exist). (The context is that for the Silurian/Devonian early plants which I'm working on at present, the only classification consistent with recent research is a cladistic one; ranks do exist for some levels, but really I'd prefer, while things are fluid, to display clade names as unranked, which makes it easier to change in future.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm on it now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the following category set for all pages needing revised as a result of this. I've included instructions on each category page for how to resolve the error: Category:Taxoboxes which can be fixed by being automated. There are several hundred thousand instances in at least one of these categories, so this will take awhile to correct. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've got a bot operator willing to do this for us. Once the |unranked_familia= on the <26K flagged pages gets swapped to |unranked_superfamilia=, I'll make the last modification necessary to have the uniformity in "unranked" usage. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason that this template is permanently protected for administrator only editing? Maybe someone can link to the protection discussion and/or the policy that allows only administrators to edit this template. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the guideline for editing "high risk" templates:[2]

Following Wikipedia:Protection policy, page protection may be permanently applied to all templates and template redirects that have been identified by the community as being of high risk to Wikipedia. If fully protected, so that they can only be edited by administrators, these templates should be changed only after consensus for the change has been established on the template's talk page.

I don't consider a single request for something to be the consensus for making a dozen edits to a high risk template. Maybe this policy doesn't apply to this administrators-only edit protection on this template, but rather some other policy applies? --Kleopatra (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not sure I'm following you...is there a recent modification to this template that you are unhappy with? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said I am "unhappy." Can you quote me and provide a link?

I did ask, however, why this template is permanently administrator-only protected. I cannot find any policy that says the red lock means that administrators are allowed to do all edits and no consensus is necessary. Please provide a link to the policy that shows that the red lock means a page is protected for administrator-only editing. The only policy I can find says that consensus is required, and I don't see any consensus here for dozens of the last exits. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simple explanation is that these templates are transcluded in thousands of pages and any vandalism like a "hello mom" message in the template will cause it to show up on thousands of pages. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore only administrators can edit, and administrators, since they can edit, dictate the templates on wikipedia? I don't see that anywhere, that administrative powers makes the editor also the writer of protected templates. What I see, instead, is a policy that says that administrators are the ones who can and do make the edits to the templates when consensus has been reached. Two different things: administrators can make whatever edits they want whenever they please versus administrators can make the edits when consensus has been reached. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ! Ok, that was not clear in your query. Yes, perhaps the usual process of identifying the change and demonstrating its effect in the sandbox version (as in some other templates) is a reasonable thing to ask for in the case of major changes. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any changes. If there's an error it can be corrected. But, changes in edit-protected articles and templates require community consensus. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLOCK has some information on this. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this does not give you the right to make any changes you see fit in a permanently protected article just because you are an administrator. Please read the entire policy and follow it by gaining community consensus for every edit to this template. In other words, I request that you and all other administrators start following policy and stop editing this template without consensus. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]