Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:"] brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Misplaced Pages: which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at ] or ]. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at ]. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). ] 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:"] brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Misplaced Pages: which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at ] or ]. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at ]. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). ] 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, mentioned the possibility of using dual classifications in taxoboxes on the WP:TOL taxobox discussion page and it was soundly rejected already. I do have another suggestion along the same lines that I will make, though. I'll add you to my user page to rememeber to discuss it with you. I'll check you move proposal. ] 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, mentioned the possibility of using dual classifications in taxoboxes on the WP:TOL taxobox discussion page and it was soundly rejected already. I do have another suggestion along the same lines that I will make, though. I'll add you to my user page to rememeber to discuss it with you. I'll check you move proposal. ] 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
== Taxobox change? ==
Not being familiar much with templates, I came across a difficulty while trying to disambiguate ]. Is there a way that "type" links in taxoboxes could link directly to ] or ] as appropriate and not to the Biological type disambiguation page? (See ], for an example.) Thanks for any help, ] 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:56, 2 December 2006
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.
Great work bringing on the new template!... but there are still a couple of parameters missing.
Firstly, I need to be able to specify taxa at "Section" and "Series" rank. See Taxonomy of Banksia for evidence of a number of non-existent species articles, for which these ranks will be needed when I get around to writing them.
Secondly, the "Diversity" option was very useful. I used it at Banksia to state the number of species, since the subdivision was at subgenus rank. It is also very useful for higher taxa such as families and orders.
Thirdly, the "Synonyms" option was also useful, and should be included here.
The "section" rank should have been entered in Latin, so it should have been 'Sectio'. (The sectio templates already existed). I don't think the section and series ranks were added in the right place. At least on the page Taxonomy of Banksia, both ranks are above the Families.
Your addition of the diversity and synonym templates inserted more whitespace in taxoboxes not containing these templates. I've tried to remove the whitespace, with horrible effects on Banksia... As that is so far the only page using a new taxobox with these templates, I've subst'ed the taxobox, and repaired it manually. I hope someone knowledgeable in the arcane templating arts can debug the template... Eugene van der Pijll17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I confess the whitespace was indeed introduced by me, but this was in an attempt to fix the taxobox at Jarrah, which was showing the same horrible effects you saw at Banksia, even though it does not use either of the new parameters. Your fix has destroyed the taxobox at Jarrah once again. I'm going to revert your change. I acknowledge that the whitespace is a problem, but until we can find someone "knowledgeable in the arcane templateing arts" to address this problem properly, extra whitespace is preferable to some boxes not working at all. Snottygobble | Talk05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Can somebody who understands templates fix it to remove the unattractive extra whitespace please? The most obvious and simple fix utterly destroys the taxoboxes at Jarrah and Banksia, so please take these pages into account when fixing. Snottygobble | Talk05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I've fixed the problem by including empty comments at the start of each footer template. Josh
I think there should be one simple link to Wikispecies in the taxobox to the specific class/genus/species or whatever the article is on. The point of Wikispecies is to go far more in depth than Misplaced Pages, and so it should have every classification category, unlike Misplaced Pages which ought to only list the important ones. A link in the currently unused taxobox title-text would allow an interested person to go from the general information to the detailed, specific scientific information while keeping the focus of each Wiki. I wrote a bit of code that links to the classification-format Wikispecies page if there is a binomial or trinomial name, and otherwise a Wikispecies link to a page of the name of the Misplaced Pages page. That common name-format page can then be redirected by the initial editor to the proper classification-format page, which we know already from the Misplaced Pages information. For examples, I've already done this with the whale and oak taxobox usage examples. This code would replace the simple {{{name}}} towards the start of the template:
Test it out. The few problems is that right now the bi/trinomial names have formatting marks for italics which need to be moved outside the {{{bi/trinomial}}}; it's a widespread problem but a very quick fix. The other problem is with multiple bi/trinomial classifications; a simple fix would be to add a {{{bi/trinomial_2}}} input. It shouldn't be too hard to go back and fix existing taxoboxes and should be very simple when creating new taxoboxes. This, I believe, would help fill the gaps and properly bridge Misplaced Pages and Wikispecies. RttlesnkeWhiskey05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
While your wikicode is probably correct, having the link in the taxobox is not. Links to external sites, including sister projects, should be in the External links section. Sister project links are generally put in a sister links box in that section. (Such as {{Wikispecies}}.) - UtherSRG(talk)14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
On the technical side, it needs more testing and should support bi/trinomial_2 also (as much as i can't stand those keys) as you say. Also the articles on Wikispecies sometimes have slightly different titles to what Misplaced Pages puts in its taxobox (e.g. when there's synonyms or a subgenus taxon), so the option of overriding the defaults would be needed. Also if there is no bi or trinomial name on Misplaced Pages, no link should be shown at all to Wikispecies unless an override is given (the default you have there is to link to the English name i think?)
On the policy side of things, I think every rule has its exceptions, and allowing external links from info boxes (especially to reference sites such as Wikispecies) is one such exception which is already common enough. e.g. Casablanca (film) links to IMDB; Brain stem links to various reference sites; and Sony links to stock prices. I support linking to wikispecies from the Taxobox if it can be done neatly.—Pengo22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I would propose adding a line like "wikispecies=<taxon>". This way, one can easily link to WikiSpecies if one wants to, without breaking existing code. And there would be no problem with having different names in wpedia and wspecies. --Sarefo08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That works fine for articles about a single taxa, but what about an article about a taxa that is monotypic inside another, such as chimpanzee (which is about Pan and Panina) or orangutan (Ponginae and Pongo), among countless others? I know of at least one article where there are two monotypic levels inside a larger, and one with even more. - UtherSRG(talk)10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as a problem at all. This link would provide an easy way to step over into WSpecies, and I think the taxobox is the most intuitive place for it. In the case of Trichoplax, I would eg. write "wikispecies=Placozoa". Then one can enter WSpecies at this point and click down the hierarchy. That's one reason why I wouldn't automatically use an already existing line for linking; this way, you can decide by hand what's the best entry point to WSpecies. And, btw, iirc Treptoplax reptans was probably some chemical preciptitate ;) --Sarefo18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we change the "?"
The first time I saw the question mark in the top right corner of the "taxobox" I thought someone had typed it to question the name of the plant (a sort of "is this really correct?" comment). Then when I saw it a few more times I began to think it was some sort of bug or formatting glitch in the template. Now finally I realise that it's a link to some help. Could we change it to read "help" in some suitably small and unobtrusive font? (Or at least make it look like a question mark icon, or graphic, rather than just text.)
I don't understand why this hasn't been changed. A "?" in taxonomy means something, it means there is uncertainty about the taxonomic placement. Misplaced Pages cannot have every taxonomic box on article pages showing that the taxon's identity is in question.
I just got a newsletter blurb from one of my writers advising readers not to use Misplaced Pages as a resource because it indicates that Umbellularia californica is in dispute as a name, when in fact it is not!
I thought she was talking about the common name discussion, but, no she pointed out that the species name is in dispute, "See the question mark after the species name in the classification box on the right?"
It looks like this is still in discussion at that link Eugene posted. Until this is settled, I'm going to remove the {{editprotected}} request template. When it is settled, if there is agreement, and another administrator hasn't made the edit already, please link to the resolution, and put back the template. AnonEMouse22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
unranked
I'd like to start working the new taxobox into the Primate articles, but there's a hitch preventing me. Several Primate taxoboxes (including the one at Primate itself!) includes an unranked taxon. I recognize the unfeasibility of inserting code into the template between every named taxa for a possible unranked one. Is there another way to get this to work? I've put the new taxobox into Primate, but left it commented out. - UtherSRG(talk)19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Before optional parameters were possible, I used some HTML to put within a parameter. It worked as follows:
Wonderful! I had tried with wiki syntax. I hadn't thought to "go deeper" and use HTML.... and here I was one of the guys saying we should stick with HTML and not use wiki syntax for taxoboxes.... :) - UtherSRG(talk)16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic created a new version of this page that didn't use meta-templates. This is, of itself, a good thing. Unfortunately the new version didn't work properly; for pages with subdivision lists, like Percolozoa, it created a duplicate of the list above the table. I don't know enough about the alternate syntax to fix the problem, so for the time being I've done a complete revert. However, it would be better if it could be fixed. Thanks, Josh
This is cause by a flaw in the way the template was inserted into the articles. From Percolozoa, the source shows this:
| subdivision = Acrasidae<br>
Gruberellidae<br>
Lyromonadidae<br>
Vahlkampfiidae
It should be:
| subdivision = Acrasidae<br>Gruberellidae<br>Lyromonadidae<br>Vahlkampfiidae
The page states that meta templates should be avoided, but they should not be avoided at any cost, your CSS hack totally breaks layout in browsers that don't support CSS, which we aim to support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason19:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Read the talk page and look especially for comments from Jamesday. He has asked us to actively remove meta-templates, and Taxobox is the worst offender I've seen. CSS is a reasonable approach which works without straining the servers. As far as CSS support, I have read nothing that we "aim to support" people without it, and every major template relies on CSS. Even still, it won't break for that one guy without CSS, he will simply see all the rows, most empty. -- Netoholic@20:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It does look horrible in Lynx and possibly worse in Links. I shudder to think what a screen reader would make of it. But there should be a way to do it without, ahh, conditional templates ;-D At least partially - David Gerard20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that's extremly arrogant of you, IMO having the page works properly (i.e. not contain lots of garbage content) and be accessable in all browsers is more important than shaving a few milliseconds off execution time. Accessability *is* important, whether you think people should just use another browser or magically gain eyesight or whatever *annoyed*. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason02:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm all for reducing server load, but not at the expense of editors or visitors. I'm tempted to revert back to your version based upon the screenshot you provided alone. —Locke Cole05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the table to use em rather than px as a better way to support various local font setting. I can fill the space with the {{{color}} if that's better. -- Netoholic@20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
By hard-coding the width in pixels, you restrict what a hard-of-sight person can do. They may run their fonts very large locally, yet the table won't adjust. Using em avoids this. -- Netoholic@20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic, having the template work properly is more important than having it follow efficiency guidelines. I'm glad you found a work-around for the subdivision problem, but we need a way to split the lists over multiple lines, as some of them are extremely long. I'll try some experiments when I have more time; but ultimately, if meta-templates are the only way to do this, we are going to need meta-templates, plain and simple. Unless we wanted to go back to using Template:Taxobox begin.
In the mean time, I'll leave the new version, but it would be nice if you could try to address Ævar's problems. Also, I'm going to restore Yath's formatting, as the new formatting is plainly disputed above and nobody was consulted before changing it. Josh
Shouldn't it be a good idea to have a separate template (Template:taxobox2 or so) to test changes before they are changed here? This is a very important template; I think it's better not to fight revert wars on it. Ucucha(talk)07:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I am in fact wholly unconvinced that it is important to have this template working perfectly - at least, that it is more important than not crushing the servers under painful load. We got by for quite some time without pretty boxes on our taxonomy articles. Perhaps we need to simply return to that time. Alternatively, if Aevar and others were to join in trying to find a good solution instead of shooting solutions down, that would be helpful. Phil Sandifer23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you missed it, but WP:AUM stands for Avoidusing meta-templates, notNeveruse meta-templates. There should almost never be a situation where the quality of the encyclopedia suffers because of developer constraints– this is precisely such a situation where WP:AUM likely does not apply because the alternative is demonstratably worse. —Locke Cole23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
And, quite obviously, the solution is to add inherent support for infoboxes (including optional parameters) to the MediaWiki engine, thus avoiding the need for any template hacks. In case you ask why I don't do this myself, it's because my programming skills are in C and assembly, not PHP, and because I don't know how to use a CVS database nor have a server available for testing any modifications to the software. Firebug01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's plainly important to have things work properly. Anybody who changes the taxoboxes without that in mind may as well be vandalizing them, for all the good they're likely to do. That said, the concerns expressed in AUM are worth keeping in mind. I appreciate the work Netoholic has done in letting the taxoboxes confrom to his new version. However, there are three main problems:
It doesn't work on some browsers;
It doesn't accept multi-line inputs, which will make lists all but impossible to maintain;
It messes up some of the formatting.
If anyone has solutions to these, excellent, but I get the impressions none exist. The hidden table sections are simply not as powerful as meta-templates, and we have to decide what to do until we get something that is. These are the three options:
Keep using the new version, despite its problems;
Revert to the old version, despite the server strain;
Revert back to the multi-template system using Template:Taxobox begin, until a better solution emerges.
This is what I think. The meta-template version is definitely the best to use, but if it really consumes signficiant time and money, I don't think we can expect the rest of wikipedia to indulge it. I wouldn't have written it if I though it would be a serious issue. The multi-template system is harder to edit, but at least it works on all computers and didn't require lists stuffed in a single parameter. It's still used on most articles, and I'd suggest we go back to it, until developers add proper infobox support. Thoughts? Josh
Perhaps a compromise? Use the CSS / hidden table stuff where it works, but put in meta-templates/other solutions just for the things CSS doesn't cover right. Are multi-line inputs required in every section of the taxobox or just a few? Could a change be made for the 'standard.css' (or whichever skin) of users with older browsers to strip out undefined items in CSS-style infoboxes? Et cetera. There are going to be issues with any new implementation. Given that this does have performance issues (though I still have no clear idea of how significant they are) we should see if solutions to these glitches can be worked out. --CBD☎11:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks. I've brought this discussion over to WP:AUM (Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Section "Alternatives": Problem with CSS). The problem is that Neto is correct because, sadly for me too WP:AUM stands (It's a real pain in my arse but that does not matter). And WP:AUM is backed by an important developer (Jamesday). I know it myself because I'm also an aficionado of qif (I worked on template:book reference, still hoping that can survive) and I would be very glad if developers could implemement something like that in code. I know it's very sad. I've come myself to the conclusion that we better break lynx for now than being without any conditionals in templates. See also that whole discussion on WP:AUM. (Updated) Adrian Buehlmann15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I really prefer the newer format for adding taxoboxes. But perhaps we can use a bot to change all existing new-format taxoboxes to old-format ones periodically? If necessary, I can write such a bot. Eugene van der Pijll20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be great if you could. In the mean time, important pages like dinosaur and protist have been broken trying to figure out how to compress the subdivision lists. So the current version is creating serious problems, and the meta-template version would need to be rewritten, since the conditionals have been removed. As such, I think we have to go back to the multi-template system, and I'm marking this template as deprecated. Josh
Mr. Weeble has come up with a way of doing old-style conditionals without meta-templates. Info on it can be found at Template_talk:Infobox_TV_channel. The basic structure is: {{{dummy parameter{{{Variable|}}}|Text and wikimarkup to be printed if Variable exists}}}. If 'Variable' is passed in to the template then the text is printed, otherwise it isn't. This may be adaptable to fix the subdivision problems with the CSS version. --CBD☎19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and put in this code for the subdivision section. Seems to work ok. Take a look and let me know what you think. --CBD☎20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks good to me, and it does indeed handle multi-line inputs. If it still uses CSS, of course, it won't work on all browsers, but that can probably be fixed the same way. Josh
There are basically four ways of handling text suppression currently;
Conditional meta-templates: Strongly discouraged under WP:AUM.
CSS trick: Breaks multi-line text, problems with non-CSS browsers, et cetera.
WeebleCode: Requires a dummy parameter be set blank in the call or prints {{{Parameter}}} for any parameters not included in call.
Blank default parameter: Can only be used to suppress unpassed parameters, not header text related to them.
This template is currently using the last of those, {{{subdivision|}}}, to get around the multi-line problem. It uses CSS for everything else. WeebleCode might be a viable alternative to CSS throughout, but all calls to the template would need to have a '|weeble=' line or somesuch or they'd print any parameters not passed in. The conditional meta-template method is the only one which works in all cases, but it ought to be possible to mix and match the other three to come up with something servicable in most cases. Or we could wait for some hypothetical change to the MediaWiki software. --CBD☎20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Image descriptions
Khoikhoi pointed out that this template was not showing captions below the images the way the multi-line one did. There was an 'image_caption' parameter being passed, but the template was using it as the 'pop up' text which displays when you hover the mouse over the image. Since the captions often contain markup and hyperlinks, which can't be displayed in pop-ups, this didn't work very well. I switched it back to using the 'image_caption' as caption text below the image. I also added an 'image_description' parameter for the pop-up text. An example showing both caption and pop-up can be seen at Sperm Whale. Unfortunately, the pop-up text in all of the old multi-line taxobox calls were lost (and most of them seem to have had it set) somewhere in the conversion to the single taxobox template. I don't know how important people find this pop-up text (it defaults to the image file name), but it can now be set through the 'image_description' parameter. --CBD☎12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
New bolding & authority entries incorrect with expectations
Well, my expectations at least. "Kingdom:" etc. should not be bolded, but the current version causes such a bolding on Internet Explorer (damn company won't let me use Firefox anymore. (grumble, grumble.) - UtherSRG(talk)14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, taxa entries with an authority end up being centered vertically with respect to the taxa's rank; the rank and the taxa name should be on the same level, while the authority should be below. - UtherSRG(talk)14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed both. Are we happy enough with this new version, then, to encourage people to use it, or are there still outstanding issues? Josh
It doesn't display properly on some (uncommon) browsers and the CSS won't be easily portable outside Misplaced Pages. There is a solution to those issues (see User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox3 for the template and User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox for several calls to it), but it would require adding |if= to each existing and future call to this template. Up to you folks whether the tradeoff is worth it... these issues have no impact on most people. --CBD☎01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about a completely different subject. My comment above is about the wikitable markup, not CSS. -- Netoholic@17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Netholic has redone his changes. I've removed the style change and left the row headers as he wants them. Is there a way to unbold them while keeping the "!" syntax? Unbolded is the standard for taxoboxes. - UtherSRG(talk)17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Way back when, the taxa ranks were links. When we decided to do away with those links (since most linked to just one article) it was decided that they would be regular text. Not bolded, not italics, not any different in size, just plain text. Regardless, whether the status quo was a decision or not, changing from one format of table to another should not change the way a table is presented. If you want to make a change in the status quo, please discuss it first, don't foist it upon us without some discussion and consent. - UtherSRG(talk)18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What an aggressive response! I've already explained the main two reasons for using proper row headers ("!") - it fits with the wikitable pipe syntax and makes the tables easier on people who may use screenreaders. Do you want to explain what good reason we have to set aside the accessibility benefits? Something better than "I personally feel..." or "that's how it's been for x months" would be nice. Take a look at this explanation for information on why table headers are a Good Thing. -- Netoholic@19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No more aggressive than your change. Whether "!" or "|" is used is keeping with the wikitable pipe syntax, so your point is moot. I've asked if there is a way to keep the "!" but lose the bolding, you were silent. I have no problem with accomodating screenreaders, but I'd like to have dialogue first, then agreement, then change (if agreed). To have the change foisted upon us without discussion, when there has been plenty of discussion about not changing the taxobox without discussion is quite aggressive. So again I ask, is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG(talk)21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, I know you want to bust out the word "unilateral". Anyway, yes, there are was to de-bold the headers. Are you concerned only for how it looks for you or for everyone? Personally, I doubt most readers would notice or care. -- Netoholic@21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, "unilateral" hadn't come to mind. Why do you think this is about me, when I'm talking about quite literally years of discussions and changes with the taxobox? And perhaps most readers won't care or notice, but I know you care about screenreaders, and I care about taxobox format maintenance. The new taxobox template style (with your changes) is not consistent with the existing taxobox multi-template style. Yes, I don't like this, and yes, I can only speak for myself. However, I can cite the many dialogues on the subject of changing the taxobox. And yet again: is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG(talk)22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a few options. First, if you don't like that this template is different than the multi-template taxobox style, we can change those as well. Second, if you prefer them unbolded, I can show you how to change your personal settings in a way that addresses that. Third, I can de-bold them, but that change limits others by essentially forcing a style onto then that they won't be able to customize themselves (see my second point earlier). Fourth, we can just accept, for the time being, that this template have bolded headers (this will be a handy visual clue for anyone doing conversion work). -- Netoholic@23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not just that people are objecting to them being in bold, which CSS can fix. It's that people should be objecting to them because they are semantically incorrect as well. The ! wiki table markup produces the HTML tag not for a table row, but that which means table header in HTML semantics. Many of the places that you are putting the ! markup are not table headers, they are ordinary data cells. For example, for the taxobox "Scientific classification" and "Binomial name" are headers, but not "Kingdom" and the like. David Newton18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Stupid question. Has anyone tried looking at this page with a screenreader? Because Ævar has suggested that the new version may not work with them anyways, and based on the sample of what goes wrong without headers, it doesn't look like it would make this table any harder to understand. And, Netoholic, unilateral action is fine until opposed; it would be nice if you would work with the people who actually use this, of which Uther is notable. Josh
Headers always make every table easier to navigate. Ævar's concern had nothing to do with screenreaders, but there is a method I am working on that will make these work even better for screenreaders (basically setting a parameter that prevents the screenreader from vocalizing hidden content). Please date your posts. -- Netoholic@23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there anywhere where people not familiar with the taxobox system or taxonomy in general can request a taxobox be added to an article? I consider myself fairly confident with both systems, so I'd like to help out people who are less confident. Perhaps there could be a link on Misplaced Pages:How to read a taxobox, as this is linked from every existing taxobox and so is a natural place for people to look for help? Just a thought. Soo14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a query on the image captions. Is it neccessary to put the photographer name on the Image caption of taxoboxes a part of the requirement for creative commons by attribution 2.5 licenses ? Shyamal10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
CSS hack reduces accessibility
I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion. I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.
This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS. This makes Misplaced Pages less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers. This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility. Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens. —MichaelZ. 2006-01-16 17:50 Z
The effects of CSS hacks (click for full size image)The same page with meta-templates in use (click for full size image)
Given the recent revelations at WP:AUM, I'm proposing reverting this back to this version of the template. Is there any reason this would be bad? I would very much like to avoid the CSS hacks used in the current version of this template. —Locke Cole • t • c12:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The screenshot looks pretty good. The other alternative is inefficient on the back-end, involving dozens of database calls that can be avoided. The current template source is quite readable, and the template itself is easy to place into articles. There is more cleanup we can do for non-CSS browsers, but that is an EXCEEDINGLY LOW percentage of page views (and the geeks that use it know what they're getting into). -- Netoholic@13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, you realize a lot of those lines wouldn't even be displaying if we were using the meta-template version of this template, right? (Basically any line without info on it wouldn't display). It's a huge confusing mess right now in Lynx... —Locke Cole • t • c13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Not confusing, it seems well laid out. The flaw of meta-templates is in the fact that the template source using meta-templates is unreadable except by template geeks. Biologists may want to change this template sometime in the future, and they shouldn't need to deal with odd syntax. It also does cause many, many more database calls (though the practical impact of that hasn't been proven). Avoid complexity. Don't use the presentation on lynx as the only factor. Lynx is an outdated thought experiment with very low realusage. I am fine with this template looking the way it does on Lynx, so long as it looks good to the future editors of lynx. -- Netoholic@14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is absolutely confusing. Many of those fields shouldn't even be displayed, and yet they are. Your solution for this problem, please? —Locke Cole • t • c14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and reverted it back to the meta-template version. Please report any problems here, and let's see if we can't reduce the reliance on meta-templates (without sacrificing the accessibility of articles that use the template for disabled viewers). —Locke Cole • t • c16:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've got some thoughts on reducing the number of internal template calls here. It may be possible to simplify the logic somewhat while keeping the functionality (and avoiding CSS compatibility problems). --CBD☎17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, anything we can do to minimize the use of meta-templates while not sacrificing accessibility would be most welcome. —Locke Cole • t • c17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Being bold", when it's clear there is opposition to the change. Your trolling on this subject is becoming tiresome. -- Netoholic@17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, Netoholic had claimed that all screen-readers were CSS enabled, but it turns out that one of the most common ones is not. That's a much bigger deal than the Lynx/Links browser problems. Further, Brion says that when/if meta-templates become a significant server load issue it will be addressed on the developer side. That eliminates the entire rationale behind converting to the CSS hack... even if it hadn't recently been found to be defective. There is just no reason to continue using that method now. --CBD☎17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, there's a problem with this template I think. Everything seems fine in English Misplaced Pages, however when I set this template with its all sub templates, it shows all the empty taxonomic headers (for ex. shows classis although it's not defined), this is due to the changed style when I log into my account, I mean if I read the article anonimously, everything seems correct. Is there any workaround for this problem?
The problem is likely the CSS hack. The way the template suppresses text now is based on a change to the MediaWiki:Common.css to add;
/* hiddenStructure from Monobook - allows selective hiding of markup in templates */
.hiddenStructure {
display: none;
speak: none;
}
If the Turkish Misplaced Pages doesn't have that it wouldn't suppress the text and you'd see the extra fields you are describing. That said, Locke Cole is proposing that we revert this template to a version which uses meta-templates rather than the CSS hack... which would remove this problem and others related to CSS. There is currently debate and confusion about the relative merits of CSS vs meta-templates vs 'Weeble' (another option for conditional text). Personally, I think we'll end up with a combination of meta-templates and Weeble (which is really just a sometimes better way of applying the concepts behind conditional meta-templates) and scrap CSS due to it's inherent flaws, but it is still being sorted out. In the interim you can get the kludge above added to the Turkish Wiki or use an earlier non-CSS version of this template. --CBD☎18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I realized the hiddenstructure parametre in the template and also realized that the problem was about it :), but I actually had no idea how to get stuff working. A big thank you :) --Alperen09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Update
As Locke Cole and I were discussing I've gone through and made some changes to the way this template works. The results displayed should not change and the CSS hack is not used, so it will work on all browsers. However, I've added new sub-templates to make the template more efficient. Since 'if defined call1' (and 'call2' / 'call3' also) nested in both the 'if defined call' and 'void' templates, each conditional section of this template was calling three other templates. Making the 'authority' lines under each of the classifications (Genus, Species, Order, et cetera) a separate call also meant three nested template calls for each of those. I have changed it so that each conditional element uses a single nested template and the 'authority' lines are all included in the same condition as the element they are an authority for (reducing six template calls to one for each of the thirty-two classification options). Thus the number of nested template calls has been greatly reduced. This also resulted in reducing the total length of the template. You can probably figure out the logic of the new format by inspection, but let me know if there are questions. I'll put some instructions on the new sub-templates later. Also let me know if anything breaks... I tested it with alot of different pages before updating, but there are always special conditions. --CBD☎03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The text size of the conservation status section is so small as to be unreadable. Can we make it slightly bigger? In the final source it ends up rendering the text inside a double set of <small> tags. I believe one set would be adequate. Unfortunately the template is so convoluted I can't figure out how to edit it myself. Kaldari01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Taxoboxes with unranked entries in the classification section cannot at present be represented using this template. You can see at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox norank entry that there are quite a few (mostly among the extinct reptiles). You can see that Deinonychus and Archosaur contain three adjacent unranked entries.
There are various options, none altogether palatable:
Abandon Linnaean classification for some taxa.
Use intermediate ranks for the unranked taxa (e.g. sn2000 gives Archosauria the rank of division )
Remove unranked taxa as far as possible in the taxoboxes.
Extend the taxobox template to allow unranked taxa to appear. Perhaps one unranked taxon per rank would be adequate for most purposes.
I recall seeing a taxobox which handled this issue by putting the code for the 'unranked' item(s) in the preceding entry. For instance, on Deinonychus you could set, '|subordo = ]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>]<tr><td>(unranked)<td>]'. Not the prettiest methodology, but it should work. The problem with implementing this directly into the template is that you would have to list an 'unranked' parameter under each level (unranked-ordo, unranked-subordo, et cetera) to be able to determine where to place them. If it would be ok to put all the unranked items at the end that could be accomplished easily. --CBD☎17:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the unranked entries have to appear in their proper order. Yes, in (4) above I was imagining having one unranked parameter for each rank. Not very nice. This whole problem arises from a collision of taxonomies: the taxobox supports a Linnaean (ranked) taxonomy but experts on extinct reptiles tend to use cladistic taxonomies. Gdr17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I found the page I recalled which does this. See Primate for an example of unranked entries in the existing taxobox. Rather than adding lots of new parameters I might suggest another template. Something like |subordo = ]{{unranked|taxa1|taxa2|taxa3|taxa4|taxa5}}. The 'unranked' template would then convert however many parameters passed to it into HTML to add the extra rows under subordo. Only problem with this is that the 'subordo_authority' (if set) would end up under the last unranked entry. Though that could be avoided by setting the 'unranked' in the authority line. --CBD☎18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If entries are added to taxoboxes by hacks like the one at Primate then this will cause trouble for automated tools that operate on taxoboxes. It would be better to have a recommended approach. I think that one unranked entry for each major taxon above family would handle 90% of cases: for example unranked_familia for a rank above family (and superfamily etc) and below order (and suborder, infraorder, etc). I'll try implementing this. Gdr18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ambiguous divisions
In botany, "Division" is a rank below kingdom and above class.
In zoology, "Division" is a rank below order and above family. (I don't know how standard this is but it is used at SN2000 and we have some articles that use it, e.g. Heliconiinae.)
At the moment the taxobox template only implements the botanical use of "division". How can it be made to implement both? Gdr15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
But getting rid of "divisio" would break thousands of botanical taxoboxes! Surely a bit too drastic? Gdr17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Is 'divisio' used extensively for zoological boxes? If not then it can remain as is for botanical and a new 'zoo_divisio' parameter (and associated authority) be added for zoological entries. If 'divisio' is being used alot for both currently then something could still be done where we have 'divisio' appear twice in the list, but only print it if both 'divisio' and some bot/zoo identifier parameter is set. --CBD☎17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think zoodivisio is the right way to go (leaving divisio for plants). "Division" is rarely used in the zoological sense, but there are thousands of plant taxoboxes that use it. I added it to the template but removed it from Heliconiinae in line with the "major ranks only except where more detail is useful" guideline. Gdr17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. I went back and looked at the prior multi-line taxobox... it had one line broken in the same way and that was copied over by the bot. Just an extra set of open brackets '
Importing into other language versions
I can't seem to transfer this template to the Irish Misplaced Pages - I copied and pasted but it comes out as gibberish. Any advice? EamonnPKeane21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I copied over some of the templates that were missing, but it still looks wrong. I'll keep looking at it and see if I can figure out what's missing, but if anyone else wants to look, check out ga:Teimpléad:Taxobox. —Locke Cole • t • c22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like new things, you can use the old way still too. As for me, I find two letter codes easier than long-winded template names. I've made it as easy to use as possible, and stayed "backwards compatible". Enjoy!
Let me know if there's anything that acts oddly. I did do a bit of testing before I updated the template (there's quite a cache purge when you do), but let me know if anything's not right. It's moderately scary updating a template used by so many pages.
Several people have tried to change the border colour to the default grey for infoboxes, but UtherSRG, who seems to think he owns this template, has reverted them each time. I can't find any discussion where it was decided not to use grey. What does everyone else think? ed g2s • talk14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It has never been decided to use the gray. It has never even been proposed. There has been one user who unilaterally tries to change it a lot, but he isn't into discussing things, apparently (I am not referring to you, ed g2s). --Yath15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh bull, ed. I'm hardly acting alone. The following folks have likewise reverted the gray border to the current one, on this template and on {{taxobox begin}}:
Discussions of various natures have been had on the talk for WP:TOL and on template talk:taxobox begin. None of those discussion have convinced anyone of anything except that the taxobox shall remain black-bordered, and that your meddling is bothersome. - UtherSRG(talk)15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Problems
Apparently new changes to the template are causing empty spaces to appear inside taxoboxes when using subdivisions and also at the top of articles. Examples Tiktaalik and TetrapodJoelito21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made the conservation status (together with fossil range) a new section by itself rather than being part of the heading. It's more consistant this way and allows future expansion. I've also allowed references to be added to the status with "status_ref" (see Golden lion tamarin for the only example so far). Further tweaks may still be needed, but so far it looks like I haven't broken anything. The plan is to update all the statuses of red listed creatures and properly reference it all too. Any problems let me know ( and/or fix it yourself :) ) —Pengo17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ew. I don't like it. For now, I'm reverting. Post some mock-ups and let's work on tweaking it as a mockup before we go mucking with the template, eh? - UtherSRG(talk)18:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about it? The change basically was to make the "conservation status" look the same as the rest of template. It's much too bulky to squeeze in where it is. I also changed some wording, because I don't think (nt), (cd) and (lc) mean a lot to many people. —Pengo10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Post some examples, or links to such and we can discuss it, along with other folks. I don't believe status_ref is needed, since one can always add a ref to the end of an item (as I've now done on Golden Lion Tamarin (note the caps)). (nt), (cd) and (lc) are explained at conservation status, for those interested in looking. - UtherSRG(talk)11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's some mockups:
Left to right:
How it is now (with references)
The new version (reverted)
Making the threat level more clear again with a graphic (yes, i did actually plan to discuss this one first, but the first step seemed like a no-brainer. Also the font size isn't meant to be bigger here.)
Also, adding a ref to the end of an item works with the name, but not with the status code, unless you keep using the old status-templates, which i personally find pretty horrible. But other suggestions are welcome.
I think version two looks a lot cleaner than the original (1). Also I don't see why someone should look up what "(nt)" means when the whole of "Conservation status: Lower risk (nt)" could be replaced entirely with just "Near threatened" and convey much more in much less space.
I believe it should be "Lower Risk (Near Threatened)", not the other way around.
Months ago, we uncolorized the conservation status on the grounds that the colors were not NPOV. I'm thinking your graphic will be judged the same way.
I think taxoboxes should be as concise as possible. It is better to make things like conservation status only a small text, instead of a large section.
By the way, I recently added a parameter "rl-id" to the Dutch taxobox template, which serves to add a list to the species' page at the Red List website (those pages have a number, this should be included). It is, for example, included in nl:Moncktonbeverrat. Maybe it can also be added here. Ucucha(talk)18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much that I like the term "population status" as that I'm not fond of "conservation status". "Conservation" doesn't fit with many of our "special" statuses such as "fossil" or "extinct" or "prehistoric". And it doesn't sound particularly NPOV, implying that a species is "extinct" because it wasn't "conserved" (although that may well be the case). By the way, the IUCN uses the term "Red List Category" instead. If I wasn't pushing to put it in its own section, i'd be pushing to have the heading removed entirely and simply write "Endangered" by itself under the plant/animal name, with a link to "Endangered species" or "conservation status" or "Misplaced Pages:Conservation status" (the "Conservation status" heading randomly pickls between either of these last two in different templates)
It's a bit more complex than that. The most recent red list categories (2001 cats) leaves out "Lower risk" and simply has NT and not LR/nt, which is only used for species which have not be re-evaluated since the change. (1994 cats.) I kept the "lower risk" part to keep it consistant with our current wording, but really "lower risk" should only been shown on species evaluated with the old system, if at all. I'm working on a bot to update all species to their current IUCN red list category complete with references by the way, so LR/nt and NT will be distinguished, at least potentially. Fortunately there's only two category sets in use.
Interesting point you raise about POV of colours. I'm no graphic artist and someone else could have a go at making a graphic. We'd probably need two versions depending on the criteria used (the 2001 categories drop "LR/cd" as well as not classing NT & LC as under LR) of the 1994 cats.). And I'm still a bit vague about it.
(in response to Ucucha): the section isn't really significantly larger than the status as it is today (Note that the conservation status is stretching the original version horizontally). And the graphic only adds a couple of lines (and it could be squashed more)
I agree with having reference to IUCN, and that was one of my main reasons for touching the taxobox template (I thought i'd clean it up while i was at it). But i've gone about it another way, putting in a <ref> tag, which does already include the id and the same link to the site. (e.g. see Sand Cat). But if a straight id + link is preferred (as with nl) we should go that way. (I'm readying a bot to do it either way) Comments welcome.
Another thing I'd like to discuss. Adding "population trend" to the population status. This could either be in the form of text ("population decreasing") or incorporated into the graphic (e.g. the circle could become an arrow left or right), or a stand alone arrow (up/down) like on the redlist site. Note that only a relatively limited number species have had "trend" evaluated. Values are: up, down, stable, unknown (and "unevaluated" or blank). —Pengo00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok... so sometimes I'm just a no-change kinda guy and it takes me soeme time to say I'm wrong. It's been a few months, and I'm seeing things with different eyes. So here it is. I'm wrong. I like your middle version, now, better than the existing format. Let's point some folks here to look it over and get buy-in to make the change. - UtherSRG(talk)12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just had a look over it, and I do, primarily, like the idea. However, there are a few things which concern me. The biggest of which is the change from "conservation status" to "population status". It isn't saying that a "species is extinct because it isn't conserved", it is stating what importance conservationists need to place on a species. The purpose of the conservation status is a tool for conservationists. I like the idea of the graphic, as it makes it more user friendly. However, the current graphic is a little clunky. Maybe we should ask a graphic designer Wikipedian to make which flows better. Also, I don't see a need to clutter the taxobox with citations. Ideally, an article should have a conservation status section, and all the citations could go there. If it is a stub, just have a general reference, as is what happens now. --liquidGhoul01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Population status vesus Conservation status. However, "population status" already has a meaning in conservation ecology and in biology. It means the size and distrubution and any associated changes in either. In conservation biology species for which there are insufficient data are often so listed because the current population status is unknown or insufficiently well known. On Misplaced Pages what will this mean? Population status "insufficient data" will means its population status is insufficiently known because its population status is insufficiently known? "Conservation status" is the term that is used, and personal preferences in terminology should not be a deciding factor in creating neologisms, or changing the meaning of an existing word to something else to use on Misplaced Pages.
The section (as it currently stands) should really be renamed IUCN Category. There are, however, still many many pages which seem to have arbitrarily chosen a category or are at least are unreferenced. e.g. these. —Pengo00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Status + Range Problems
Is there any way to fix the gap between Conservatio Status and Fossil Range? When both arguments are used is creates about two lines worth of space between them (see Giraffatitan).Dinoguy218:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In the article Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage, under Fossil Range, it states, For groups that still exist or only went extinct recently, the second period should be given as "Recent", and the current status should be indicated using the status argument. To me, this suggess the status and fossil_range arguments should be functional when both are used. If I'm wrong, maybe this section should be re-written.Dinoguy219:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the logic from using 'div' tags to 'span' tags to remove the blank space between the two sections. --CBDunkerson21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I did some major rewrites of the template logic today... which should not have any impact on the actual display of the template (other than the separate spacing issue above). The goal was to remove the out-dated {{row}}, {{section}}, and {{subtext}} templates with #if:. While I created those templates for use here in the first place (and think they did alright as an interim solution) the newer built-in #if: functionality is less vulnerable to vandalism, faster, and in other ways a general improvement I believe. I also converted the way the existing #if: calls were working from a mix of HTML tables and wiki tables to using wiki table markup throughout for consistency. Note that the {{!}} template called in numerous places just evaluates to a '|' character... the pipe needs to be hidden inside {{!}} this way when used inside a #if: conditional to differentiate between |s separating #if: parameters and those which are table markup.
Please let me know if you encounter any problems. I tested this on about twenty pages, but there could still be a few glitches in the conversion which will only show up in specific circumstances. --CBDunkerson00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>
Conservation status
The link in the taxobox points to Misplaced Pages:Conservation status. This violates WP:SELF and should be changed to a relevant content page. SchmuckyTheCat20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, apparently this was changed, but the result is bad. Compare Conservation status, which is vague and does not explain what the codes used in this taxobox mean, with Misplaced Pages:Conservation status, which gives precise meanings to the codes. I don't think this violates WP:SELF any more than the "How to read a taxobox" link does. Stevage08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I was confused when I clicked on the link and got that short article. I wanted to compare the status with others on the list. I think it should be changed back, or linked to an article space article that specifically deals with this status rating scheme. -- cmh22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Previously the link sometimes went to one and sometimes to the other in an inconsistant manner. Now that the conservation status field uses IUCN classifications it should be changed to something more appropriate. I've started several articles dealing with particular red list categories (see links on the sidebar of Conservation status) so perhaps the words after "conservation status" can be linked instead. —Pengo10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Box border
I recently changed the color of the box's border from black to #aaa, which is standard across Misplaced Pages. However, I was quickly reverted by UtherSRG. Is it ok to use the standard #aaa color for the box's border or should we continue to use a black border, and if that's the case, why? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado03:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it looks better. In any case it is not standard throughout Misplaced Pages to use boxes with a black border, so it looks inconsistent and therefore amateurish. ☆ CieloEstrellado04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Unranked rank
That is "| unranked_familia =" for example, and an oxymoron if you ask me.
This particular template got to be a pain when editing Chiniquodontoidea as it allows for no flexibility in the positioning of unranked clades which sometimes are rather abundant as is the case. As I'd rather like to get the superfamily Probainognathia into that box and as I think simplicity is in order why not bring back unranked as exemplified below and allow it to fit everywhere among the ranked hierarchies.
| unranked = {taxon}
| unranked_authority = {author, date}
I agree I'm no template luminary, though I think this saves quite a few lines of code even if one has to create a subsidiary template and would make life somewhat more easy on us paleo-types Dracontes14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The template allows one unranked taxa above each (major?) ranked taxa. Each is needed because it is not simpler, given the restrictions of wikicode, to have a "floating" entry, that is, an entry that can appear in different places depending on other entries. Also, there is only one given because any more would be too much information for the taxobox to adequately describe. The taxobox should be a breif highlight, if you want to shove more information in it, you probably really need to split it into multiple articles and/or describe it in the text or with another diagram. - UtherSRG(talk)16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
One solution I've used a few times is to use only ranked taxa in the txbx (or really well-known unranked taxa, but only one or two at most), and then have a phylogeny section in the text with an ASCII-style cladogram. The taxobox, in my experience, is best used for just classification, not phylogeny, so unranked taxa should only be used to designate major groups (like Oviraptorosauria).Dinoguy218:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Taxobox}} is simply unsuitable for a phylogenetic classification; it's really for Linnean classification. You can use the old multi-template system, or (better) develop a new template that's suitable for the purpose. Gdr19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The Synonyms section of the taxobox is great, as it allows you to list all of the older scientific names for a species. However, even though Misplaced Pages seems to think common names are more important than scientific names, there is no satisfying or standard way to list all of the common names that are often associated with a single species. I would like to suggest adding such a section to the taxobox, below Synonyms.--Jwinius12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Synonyms
The text alignment of synonyms section was centered, which looked like crap when you had a long list of synonyms of different length. They should be left-aligned with a little margin as the species or other subdivisions are. However, the syntax is beyond me (I tried, but to no avail). Can somebody please change the alignment to left-with-a-little-margin as in the species etc. listing (see Palaelodus for example)? Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed this, please double-check it is working properly. Josh
For a while now I've been writing articles and making pretty standard taxoboxes without thinking much about it. But, now I wonder about the species field: what's the point of always preceding the species name with an abbreviation of the generic name? In my view, this is totally superfluous, since the generic name is already mentioned directly above it and the binomial name directly below it.
I fear that it may also be confusing for people who are only coming to grips with scientific nomenclature, since it may give the impression that a species name is not complete unless it is proceeded by a capital letter, a dot and a space. It may also give them the notion that there is some fixed link between the generic name and the species name while in fact there is not, since species are often transferred from one genus to another.
To my knowledge, it is simply common practice to abbreviate the generic name when describing a species at length in order to save space, but only after the binomial name has been spelled out in full. To transfer this practice into the taxobox is unnecessary, inaccurate and confusing. Am I totally alone in this, or are there others who share this point of view? --Jwinius12:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To leave off the generic or its abbreviation is much more wrong; the species epithet alone is insufficient. The Genus name can be abbreviated in the Species name if it has been spelled out previously on its own or in a Species name. - UtherSRG(talk)14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! That was quite a discussion. Looks like I should have been more precise. Here's an example of what I'm thinking of:
genus = Pseudocerastes
specific = persicus
subspecific = fieldi
trinomial = Pseudocerastes persicus fieldi
This seems more logical to me -- more in the spirit of the rest of the taxobox. Comments, anyone? --Jwinius18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is that persicus or fieldi by itself has no meaning. It could mean any number of species, which also use the same epithets. P. persicus clarifies it so people at least have an idea what you're talking about. Most literature also does the same, abbreviating the genus name (and sometimes the species name), but I haven't seen many sources which just refer to something as fieldi and expect the reader to extrapolate the genera/species by previous mentions. They're going to use P. p. fieldi, or something similar. -Dawson19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You example, Jwinius, is what we used to have at one point. I was a strong proponent of keeping it that way. Im now a strong proponent to keep it the way it is. Thanks for the thoughts, but the current system is more correct. - UtherSRG(talk)19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If Mediawiki's templating system was stronger, then I'd prefer the way listed above, but it's crap so we should keep it as is. For information entry/storage the above suggestion makes more sense. With template-trickery the pieces could be assembled automatically and displayed exactly as they are now resulting in no change for the display of the page, but in a nicer input and more sensible division of data and display. However, there's no "substring" parser function to automatically take the first letter of the genus and prepend it to the species. So this is just idle pointlessness. —Pengo02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if the templating system were able to do certain things automatically, like generate a complete taxobox name using minimal input, but that isn't really necessary as far as I'm concerned. I'd be perfectly happy to keep filling in everything manually for the time being. I just thought that not typing those last few abbreviations would save everyone a little extra work while still looking pretty obvious to the casual reader. Thanks very much for your explanation, though. --Jwinius22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The "?" link
Shouldn't the "?" be absolutely positioned so that it does not steal alignment from the name? Spiff07:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a portable way to do this, please go ahead. (See here for details of a previous attempt.) Gdr18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be easiest fixed by making a 3 column table:
space
The Flying Dingbat
?
So a strip of the left and right would be missing, but at least if the name wraps, it would stay centered. I never got round to implementing it though. And using tables just layout is usually a no-no. The other possibility is just to give the "?" a line of its own:
This approach appears to work in Firefox, Opera and Internet Exploder without using extra table cells or lines:
?The Flying Dingbat
So I was bold and changed it. Let me know if it doesn't work in your favourite browser. Gdr11:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, it's not so good in Safari, there's an extra thick border around the table cell. Maybe some CSS expert can make it render nicely in all browsers. Gdr19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Synonyms and range maps
I've just put a range map in the Emu article and the synonym field is showing up beneath the map rather than under the other taxonomic info. Is there a way to fix this? --Peta12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Line thru' taxobox
The line which goes under the section headings (like the one just above this), seem to be going straight through the taxobox. This hasn't happened before, and I am wondering if it is just my computer, or if anyone else can see it. E.g. Rocket Frog. Thanks --liquidGhoul11:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I was going to bring that up yesterday, but Wiki were updating the database so I thought that it must of been something to do with that. -- Froggydarb22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, now that we have established it occurs, what has caused it? Could it have been making the "?" absolute, as that is the only recent change, and I am sure the problem couldn't have occured any earlier than that, we would've noticed it. --liquidGhoul07:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone posted a fix on WP:TOL, which I have implemented. It has worked for all articles I have tested, except Rocket Frog. I have even reset the cache and it isn't working. So, I am guessing that it isn't going to work. I will leave the change there, but if someone knows a better fix, could they please implement it. Thanks --liquidGhoul09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
NCBI is abysmally inconsistent with its taxonomy. It can range from month old cutting edge to very outdated even within a taxon. ITIS tends to be more consistent, but often consistently a decade old. TOL needs updating and finishing. Basically, I don't think there's a good enough source out there where we can apply or link to its taxonomy for all taxa.
You're probably referring to the genetics side of things, however. I had also been thinking that it would be great to have some sort of standard link to a species' NCBI page (for example, Pan paniscus would link here). Linked from that page is all genetic information ever published for that species. I would disagree with including this information in a taxobox along the same lines as not including basic measurements. Perhaps we should just develop a standard link to be included in External links. I would also argue against taking this approach above species level (or genus in poorly known taxa) as I can't see that doing much good. --Aranae17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, even ITIS is outdated for some things, and is missing whole genera for other things so it would not be suitable for a blanket link inclusion either. EMBL is the same way. I don't think there is a single definitive taxonomic resource, and agree that the best solution is to find the most accurate/detailed sites and include them in the external links instead of the taxobox. -Dawson18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be right to do this, because Misplaced Pages doesn't follow NCBI. In any case, why NCBI and not ToL, ITIS, SN2000, IPNI, or one of the other taxonomy databases out there? Gdr13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's clear that linking NCBI for the sake of taxonomy is losing here. What about the idea of a standardized link to NCBI's genome resources for individual species? It wouldn't be in the taxobox. --Aranae18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A link to genome data in "External links" could be handy (and I certainly would not object), but much more useful would be a summary in the article itself of what is known about the genome and what it tells us about the species and its taxonomy. e.g. The number of somatic and sex chromosomes could be a start. And then linking to the NCBI's database as a reference. However looking at a small number of the Eukaryota listed, many have just one or two relatively short (500 base pair) sequences listed. I'm not sure how useful that information is to anyone. So... What would be the point of linking to NCBI's genome resources exactly? —Pengo22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a valid question. I think it's clear that the information for model organisms has some worth considering the sheer amount of data present at their NCBI sites. There may be several possibilities. A general idea of the model organismness of a particular species might be of use to readers. For example, it's not surprising that the Golden Hamster has been the subject of numerous genetic studies, but readers might be surprised that the Chinese Hamster has been a far more important model than any of the pet dwarf hamsters. The fact that a species is only known genetically by 500 bp of CO I might be of value to some readers. It would certainly steer a student away from doing a report on the genetics of Sokolov's Hamster. These nucleotide entries would be a key place to look for the given student to find references. Overall, I think the best argument for it may be that NCBI is a unique and very important reference and a comprehensive record of the species should probably include genetics. I think the best argument against is "why would somebody asking these questions not be searching in NCBI in the first place?" --Aranae01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it sounds like the the real challenge is disseminating the information available into an encyclopedic form. Links to NCBI should be an afterthought. So, go on, start adding ==Genetics== headings. —Pengo08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
ID or class ?
To allow personalization of how this thing looks, it'd be nice to have it defined by means of a class or id instead of hard-coded CSS rules. That way, I (and other people that don't like the box style) can customize it. Any chance? --Thunderhead13:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The template needs to be modified so that range maps are centered, just as the main image is when it's narrower than the taxobox. See Puma for a currently non-centered range map. --Yath11:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I have to admit I was once tripped up by it too in my early days. It seems like a lot of hassle to change for little gain though. Also I dont like the name "taxobox_color" (it's still too vague). We could actually remove the tag completely and get the colour from the kingdom, but it would introduce a lot of difficult-to-maintain template code. Otherwise how about just "box_colour"? —Pengo15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It also is a lot of hassle to correct all the wrong colors. I have just corrected all remaining errors (~50, I think) from a previous database dump; I will check in a few days how many new errors there are, so that we can get an idea of the size of the problem. But some of the wrong colors were over a month old (for example the one on Cucumber), and uunrecognized colors make the box look really ugly.
Eliminating the parameter is difficult, as there is more than one way to specify the kindom (e.g. "]" vs. "]ae" vs. "]" vs. "]ae<br>monocots"), and they have to be checked every time the colour is used in the taxobox (at least 8 times). Eugène van der Pijll15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Rewamp design
Even is todays infoboxes are a derivate for the taxobox, the taxobox havn't developed much latly, so I have remade it, found at User:AzaToth/Taxobox. it look more like a normal infobox
→AzaToth21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to emphasize the words "genus", "family" etc. The astronomers do that in their infoboxes and the result doesn't really work, in my opinion. I see that you've removed the colons and lost some important centering as well. Those changes I would argue against. What do you see as the specific improvements? --Yath22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "important centering", I havn't changed any centering at all. More specific improvements is that it's designed in style to other infoboxes, the color is defined by a 'type parameter and some reducing of the compleixty of the design. →AzaToth23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Everything inside a colored band, such as "{{{name}}}" and "Scientific classification", is not centered in your version. And designing it to match other infoboxes is not in and of itself very compelling, because many other infoboxes (such as the astronomy ones I mentioned) have serious defects. Conformity would be nice, but not at the price of duplicating all that bold text. --Yath00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to Yath's complaints, the "conforming" infobox outline/dividers clashes with the color scheme used by taxoboxes, and is difficult for folks with colorblindness. - UtherSRG(talk)10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by '"conforming" infobox outline/dividers'? As I'm using the same color scheme as the original Taxobox. →AzaToth14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The "conforming" code part is making this a child of "infobox". Please don't do this. I will fight tooth and nail against it. - UtherSRG(talk)14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The current taxobox doesn't give any thin black lines on my system, and actually looks worse than the infobox border. If we need a particular look, it should probably be specified, and we could do that overtop the infobox class so that people can customize other aspects. Is there any reason not to take this approach? For instance, how close is this sample to how the tables are supposed to look? Josh
In AOL the borders are not thin black lines but uneven grey lines. Although in FireFox they display correctly, of course. Mgiganteus114:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Now you've mixed up the line styles, lost the "?" in the title section, made it wider, and bolded and shifted the taxon ranks. All of these issues need to be addressed. - UtherSRG(talk)02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
About the ?, dunno where it went, I'll add it. about the width, 23en is the de facto standard width for an infobox, and by using that width, it fits better to wikipedia as a whole. Why I keep the ranks to be left aligned, is that people usually have the habit to read left → right, they look bold because they are defined at titles now, not ordninary cells (makes it easier for blind people to comprehend the infobox) →AzaToth11:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
200px is the standard width for a taxobox; that's the standard size of the images in them. Larger images will push the taxobox bigger, but the taxobox shouldn't be larger than the picture. Non-bold ranks is standard because they are not the subject of the article. And the current standard of the ranks is sdtill left → right, so I don't see what you're trying to improve by shifting them farther from the info they are linked to. - UtherSRG(talk)12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also note that the ranks should not be bold because they are not the information being presented. And because there is no need for them to be bold. Editors need to understand that prominent elements of a web page need to be kept uncommon, lest we desensitize readers to such things and lose their value altogether. I mean if we bold every taxon, we'll have increase the visibility of the featured element "Amoebozoa" a bit. Like making it bright orange on a pale blue background. And on each side we could put animated GIFs of arrows pointing inward. And so forth.--Yath20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Good change: some beveling around the title is gone
Bad: forced wider, bold ranks, ranks moved up against the left edge, help link gone
I only just noticed it with the comparison, but it looks heaps better without the bevelled edges around the title box. What is the reason for the bevelling (I don't know anything about colour blindness, but it is a perfectly valid reason if that is so)? Can we change it? I don't like any of the other changes. Thanks --liquidGhoul12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your tests, but upon looking at it again, I think it must be something to do with the question mark. I don't know how that affects the border, but it isn't there anymore, and I only removed one thing! --liquidGhoul00:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I remove "position:relative;" from the background style, and the replaced the line down the side. I also noticed that the question marks went to the top right corner of the article (where the FA star goes). Why don't we just right aling the question mark? Thanks --liquidGhoul00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created a solution, and it can be seen on the above links to my test pages. Could people please see if it works for their browser/OS. It works on Firefox in Linux. Thanks --liquidGhoul12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Wunderbar! Firefox/XP checking in. Looks hokie-dokie-hay-oh-kay heeyah! (Don't mind me... I'm on 3 weeks with no coffee.....) UtherSRG(talk)12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to change it now, as there seems to be no objections. If anyone has technical issues with it, post here (or if admin, revert) and we will try and sort it out. If you have style issues, post here. Thanks --liquidGhoul13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Every so often, I see reversions because of changes of the color of the taxobox. I know that they are differentiated by means of the Kingdoms, so why not try to set up a parameter that makes the Kingdom parameter influence the color parameter? —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion #color parameter above. You can't really use the existing regnum param. In the new design by AzaToth, there is a type parameter, which determines the color, which is one way to solve the problem. Eugène van der Pijll09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Trend
I have noticed that when that large amount of work into changing the conservation status code, the trend was also included (as trend=). As a result, I have been adding it to the taxoboxes I create. However, it isn't coded in, and it is therefore not used by the taxobox. Was there a plan to use this data, and will we be able to include it somehow? Thanks --liquidGhoul05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This must have been raised before but couldn't the individual conservation statuses be linked to the relevant page. So if the species is listed as Endangered the word endangered would be linked to Endangered_species. All of these separate status pages are linked in the Conservation_status template, so it is be easy to navigate between them already. Chris_huh11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. However, the individual conservation status articles are not all in a great state. (Which is probably why your suggestion hasn't been done sooner). "Extinct", for example, makes little or no mention of "recent extinction" (i.e. what the IUCN defines "extinct" as) and Vulnerable species has little description at all. Also, none of the attached lists are anywhere near complete.—Pengo23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem with Extinct is that it just talks about actual extinction, and isn't really designed as a description of the IUCN status. Maybe we could work making a page for each status (i know there already are them, but fill them out with more of what IUCN really describes them as). I don't think a list of species that fall under that status should be on the page as that would mean a large page and a lot of updating. Why couldn't there just be categories for each one that the taxobox automatically adds it to and then have a link from each status page to that category.
Having said that, i suppose we could actually just have the links in the taxobox go straight to the category, which will have a short description of the status at the top and a link to the full article. Chris_huh11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Box border again
I've been saying this for a long time. Can we please change the box's border color to the standard #aaa Misplaced Pages color. The black border looks very harsh and inconsistent. Anybody agree? ☆ CieloEstrellado22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello! , I am faelomx and I have much style. Already in serious, Is not taxobox something sober with that color plain? … Because something does not have life that is “on the life”? … then it can here have a visual improvement and dynamic in taxobox… and… improving what there is it can be taxobox but beautiful of all wikis! :) OK? …. what seems to them? You hope that you like,… will like…
This is probably best discussed on the talk page of the template you wish to improve. Also, if you want, you can add color definitions to your personal style sheet, and the template will appear colorful to you. (Radiant) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I wiki in spanish do not understand that webpages has evolved and that they have remained in the past with respect to the style, english-wiki, is much colorful and much style, it is for that reason that my style in spanish-wiki seems that they do not like… that it suffers! :) Faelomx13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) -
It's colourful. I'm not sure if it fits in the current style of Misplaced Pages. Do you have the source of this template somewhere? It looks like a complicated template, so I'd like to check if it works in all browsers. -- Eugène van der Pijll17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Eugène van der Pijll: Yes it is colourful, no very colourful, ...maybe in pastel colors? about the browsers... run!!, 'cause this template it will use 5 CSS class, in pink, in yellow, in gray, in green & in blue... only. greetings , Faelomx12:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. Can you clarify? (Lo siento, no comprendo su comentario pasado. ¿Puede usted clarificar? Si usted necesita, trate usted a responder en inglés, y entonces en español) —Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is incredibly attractive, yes, please just write in Spanish. The colors are not such a big deal, even using our own colors, it would be a lovely visual presentation style wise for our taxoboxes. IMO. KP Botany00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I find our current design quite ugly, but this one, while very attractive, is amazingly off putting and a very poor fit with wikipedia's style. I would prefer to make it more simple rather than like this colourful monstrosity.. like infoboxes found elsewhere on wikipedia.. e.g. see Capcom and imagine the infobox as a taxobox. —Pengo13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Colorful monstrosity? Well, the colors are used to code for kingdom, though, and they are rather useful. When I, rarely, get an organism from the Random Article generator, a single glance at the taxobox instantly tells me, if the name is completely unfamiliar, something about the organism. The infobox you showed is busy text that must be perused--the idea behind the taxobox is to arrange information systematically to facilitate the quickest retreaval. I don't see how the infobox you linked to did this in a way that the current taxoboxes and this new design don't--please elaborate.
In spite of the many problems with taxoboxes, and my many frustrations with them, they do achieve their purpose, and were well-thought-out initially. KP Botany19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes!, only this is a sample, you will be able to contribute but ideas to improve it. But for me I design this "pretty templatezz", but it is not obligatory, we can put to us in common, to do “global desing”.
No hace falta que sea igual que ésta, sino podemos debatir sobre el mejor diseño y listo!
(Translation of above: It's not necessary that the template look just like this, but we can instead debate over the best design).
But do you have the source code? We need to make sure it works in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc. (Pero, tiene Ud. el código CSS? Es necesario que el código funciona in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc.) (y lo siento por mi español malo) —Mets501 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty. I may be alone in this, but I like the solid color as opposed to just having the color in little bands at the top. If the taxoboxes were color-coded (a good idea) it would make sense to have the color be as prominent as possible. I also like the rounded edges and, basically, everything. ~ ONUnicorn21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I designed this one taxobox, thinking about the present one but improving it:
Try what? all I can see is an image of said taxobox, and some text encloased in some soft of template, where is the code for this taxobox? where can we see it in action? do you have a running example anywhere? →AzaToth17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put the conservation status in its own section and added a diagramatic graphic thing. The diagram is slightly different if the taxon was evaluated with the old IUCN system (e.g. Orca) or the new system (e.g. Trocaz Pigeon). (The "status_system = iucn2.3" field that Beastie Bot was adding to taxoboxes was in anticipation of adding this graphic. It defaults to the new system.) If people hate the whole thing, it can be reverted. I don't add the graphic to extinct species (eg Golden Toad) because it would be in poor taste. —Pengo09:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This change has created a very bland conservation status section for fossil species, as it simply lists "Fossil" in plain text under a new heading, which to me is less aethetically pleasing than having it in unobtrusive small text within the main taxobox header (see Tyrannosaurus as an example). Any way to spruce this up, or at least increase the amount of information contained in this new section? Off the top of my head, combing fossil and extinct may work, e.g. Extinct (fossil). Combining the fossil range section into the conservation status section would be kind of cool, especially if a timeline diagram could be incorporated in place of the threat level diagram.Dinoguy200:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the standard width for the taxobox image tends to be 200px. The conservation diagram seems to be wider than this.Dinoguy201:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the image width problem (the status diagrams were set to 200px too, but had padding, which is now removed). As for the fossil status.. can't we just remove the status altogether? it seems unnecessary? there is already fossil range. Otherwise, you can just put whatever you like in there. If it's not a known code, then it defaults to whatever you write in the status field (see example) —Pengo12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have no problem removing Fossil status altogether, but there are hundreds of pages that use it. If somebody could make the code "status = fossil" produce something like "Extinct (fossil)" or simply combine it with "status = ex", this might be a better solution. Or, if possible, just have the "status = fossil" code null the whole Conservation status section, since fossil animals don't fall within any ranking system like the IUCN anyway, that I know of.Dinoguy213:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Extinct birds for example uses three different statusses for extinct. Just "Extinct" when it is since 1500 AD (IUCN), "Prehistoric" for Late Quaternary prehistoric times and (usually) known from specimens not completely fossilized, and "Fossil" for species known only from fossils. I would suggest these three different ones, OR use for all "Extinct", but than also "Extinct (prehistoric)", like it now is with fossil species. And useing the new graphic for all IUCN status, including the extinct one. Peter Maas\ 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to hide the Conservation Status when there's a fossil range, but haven't quite got it working (some white space keeps appearing).. anyone want to try getting it to work: try editing User:Pengo/taxobox and see the results at User:Pengo/taxotest. —Pengo02:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why. Surely both fossil range and conservation status are important for extant species that are the only member of higher categories (i.e. White-tailed Rat). --Aranae05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I find the conservation status image to be just about the primary focal point of the entire article in species articles with no images. I think it would ideally be smaller and less obtrusive. --Aranae05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be the focal point, it is more important than anything else in the taxobox ;). I don't think it would be possible to do it without losing information. I don't find it is ugly, so I have no problem with it. --liquidGhoul05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would an graphic for "extinct" species be in poor taste? I don't see why. I think when you use these graphics for the IUCN categories, you need also one of the Extinct status, as it is one of the IUCN categories. I would also keep the other extinct statusses, like fossil. Peter Maas\ 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is my thinking.. The status device shows a landscape of the categories that are possible for the species, and highlights its current location on that landscape — What its category is versus what it could be. So say, an endangered species like the Maleo may eventually become critically endangered, or may go the other way and become only "near threatened". Even a "least concern" species may one day become endangered. In contrast, an extinct species is extinct. Crichtonian cloning and Lazarus resurrection aside, there is no such landscape for an extinct species. It will never be critically endangered, or vulnerable, or near threatened, or least concern, or extinct in the wild. It is extinct and will continue to be. Adding an "extinct" graphic showing these other categories would be akin to adding a range map to the dodo, or having an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is. Personally, I'd consider that to be in poor taste. —Pengo04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I kind of agree with that, except that many, many species have come back from an extinct classification. It is not fact that many of the smaller animals/plants etc. are extinct, it is just assumed from the lack of finding them. It has happened quite a few times with Australian frogs. --liquidGhoul05:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I did make reference to Lazarus taxa above, however species which may be extinct but it isn't certain are generally listed as Critically Endangered (CR) or "Possibly Extinct" by the IUCN. —Pengo23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is, would indeed be poor tast, I agree with you on that. But I disagree when it comes to the extinction status or range maps (that show their former range). That is only informative and educational in my opinion. It shows facts. Not poor taste in my opinion. Peter Maas\ 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
New taxobox is misleading for endangered species not on the IUCN Red List
There are plenty of species that are considered vulnerable, threatened, rare, endangered or even critically endangered, but do not appear on the Red List. The old taxobox format permitted such species to be listed as "Endangered" (for example), where "endangered" might be defined in some way other than the IUCN definition. The new taxobox format includes a IUCN-specific graphic that incorrectly implies that these species have been classified against the IUCN definition.
Consider for example the featured article Banksia brownii. This is listed as "Endangered" under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, yet does not appear on the Red List. When the article was featured, the taxobox simply said "Conservation Status: Endangered", which was entirely appropriate. Now it contains an IUCN-specific graphic which (a) incorrectly implies that it has been classified by the IUCN; and (b) incorrectly implies that "endangered" is used in accordance with the IUCN definition. As a consequence I have had to remove the conservation status from the taxobox. This is not acceptable.
Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae
"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Misplaced Pages: Article on Tilia which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --Eleassar14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, mentioned the possibility of using dual classifications in taxoboxes on the WP:TOL taxobox discussion page and it was soundly rejected already. I do have another suggestion along the same lines that I will make, though. I'll add you to my user page to rememeber to discuss it with you. I'll check you move proposal. KP Botany18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Taxobox change?
Not being familiar much with templates, I came across a difficulty while trying to disambiguate Biological type. Is there a way that "type" links in taxoboxes could link directly to Type (botany) or Type (zoology) as appropriate and not to the Biological type disambiguation page? (See Asteraceae, for an example.) Thanks for any help, Figma16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
