| Revision as of 14:15, 18 April 2024 editErutuon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users32,176 edits →TemplateStyles tag generates empty paragraph: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:13, 19 April 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,771 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 31) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *See also ] | *See also ] | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == IUCN Redlist - now also Green Status == | |||
| {{Speciesbox | |||
| | name = Pygmy hog | |||
| | genus = Porcula | |||
| | parent_authority = ], 1847 | |||
| | species = salvania<ref name = MSW3>{{MSW3 Artiodactyla |id=14200053 |page=641 |heading=Species ''Porcula salvania''}}</ref> | |||
| | authority = ], 1847 | |||
| | status = EN | |||
| | status_system = IUCN3.1 | |||
| | status_ref = <ref name=iucn>{{cite iucn |title=''Porcula salvania'' |name-list-style=amp |author1=Meijaard, E. |author2=Narayan, G. |author3=Deka, P. |date=2019 |page=e.T21172A44139115 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T21172A44139115.en |access-date=16 January 2022}}</ref> | |||
| | status2 = Critically Depleted | |||
| | status2_system = IUCN Green | |||
| | status2_ref = <ref name=iucn/> | |||
| }} | |||
| The IUCN now includes a Green Status on some of their listings. Maybe only the Endangered ones? I don't know. Anyway, I saw it at . We may want to incorporate this. - ] ] 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : That's new to me. As far as I can tell it's about conservation efforts, so presumably they only do it on endangered/threatened ones. It might be a while before they get a Fully Recovered status. | |||
| : It's possible to include it using the existing system by adding {{para|status2_system|IUCN Green}} and {{para|status2|Critically Depleted}} (see taxobox to right). If someone created a set of graphics it could be handled as a recognised system. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == Rank of infrakingdom == | |||
| Is there a way the rank "infraregnum" could be added? It is necessary to showcase some disputed taxa like the Apusozoa (infrakingdom Diacentrida, subkingdom Sarcomastigota, kingdom Protozoa). Thanks in advance. ] 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{automated taxobox |taxon=Halvaria}} | |||
| : {{ping|Snoteleks}} It is already available in {{tl|automatic taxobox}} (e.g. see ] and right). For consistency, it probably should be added to {{tl|taxobox}} as well, although we try and avoid making changes there unless absolutely necessary. Do you need it specifically with a manual taxobox? I think it preferable to make any new taxoboxes with {{tl|automatic taxobox}} so let me know if there is something you need and don't know how to implement. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::] uses {{tl|paraphyletic group}}, which is a variant of the manual taxobox. - ] ] 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Yes, like Uther said, I need it specifically with a manual taxobox for a taxon that is abandoned, and therefore I didn't want to implement the taxon into the automatic taxobox system. ] 17:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : {{tl|paraphyletic group}} uses the prototype taxobox module (see ]), which can take manual taxonomy parameters or use the automated system (by setting {{para|auto}}). I'm surprised that auto wasn't the default as it probably should be. I've updated the module to allow infraregnum with the manual taxonomy parameters (although this won't work with the {{tl|taxobox}} template). — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Paraphyletic group |auto=yes |subheader= (obsolete paraphyletic group) | |||
| | name = Apusozoa | |||
| | image = Apusomonas.png | |||
| | image_alt = Apusomonas sp. | |||
| | image_caption = '']'' sp. | |||
| | taxon = Apusozoa | |||
| | authority = ] 1997 emend. 2013 | |||
| | includes = | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| | excludes = | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| :: {{ping|Snoteleks|UtherSRG}}It turns out that ] is the only example of {{tl|paraphyletic group}} using the manual taxobox parameters. All the others have {{para|auto|yes}} or {{para|auto|virus}}. I think {{tl|paraphyletic group}} should be changed to use {{para|auto|yes}} by default and require {{para|auto|no}} to use the manual taxon parameters if absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary and think it would be better to use an automated taxobox. This makes it easier to review the taxonomies used on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :: I'd also question the use of infrakingdom ] and subkingdom ] for ]. Neither have articles and it's a different classification to that used in the phylogenetic tree in the article. It makes more sense to place Apusoozoa within Obazoa than in the two paraphyletic Cavalier-Smith taxa, although that could be mentioned as an alternative in the text. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, I wasn't aware para could use auto. Cool beans. As for the classification, I have no skin in the game; I was only helping to explain the OP's request. - ] ] 12:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] I understand that, but at the same time, Apusozoa is an abandoned taxon whose only usage is within Cavalier-Smith's hierarchical classification, not the current cladistic classification of eukaryotes. If we apply this rule that every abandoned taxon should be added into the automated taxobox system, we would end up with a lot of outdated para- or polyphyletic taxa whose only parent is Eukaryota or something nearly as big, because its parent taxa are also abandoned. Which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the disputed taxa should intermingle with the automated taxoboxes. | |||
| :::Would the creation of articles for ] and ] be a good solution of this? ] 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Snoteleks}}, why not put it in ], and remove the taxobox? This is what's done for some other Cavalier-Smith taxa, e.g. ] and ].] (]) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If it is deserving of an article, then I think it should have a taxobox. The taxobox has more information than just the taxonomy and the taxonomy is still relevent if the taxon is no longer used. The question is which deserve articles. I've seen enough independent coverage of Apusozoa to warrant an article, but ] and ] are little used by others. That is why I think a taxobox reflecting the taxonomy shown in the phylogenetic tree would be better. Just adding {{para|auto|yes}} to the existing taxobox gives a suitable taxobox. I've added it here (see right) with a few tweaks. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, I guess that's the more useful outcome. I'll do that instead.<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] <small>(])</small></span> 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just noticed, what about ]? The (non-automatic) taxobox clearly shows Actinopoda and Sarcodina as parent taxa even though those are also obsolete. Where should we draw the line? I think maybe ] ones such as Heliozoa could retain a non-automatic taxobox, while ] ones that still "fit" in the Tree of Life (such as ], ], ]s, etc.) can be transferred into the automatic system. Does that sound good? <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] <small>(])</small></span> 17:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: This discussion has expanded beyond the technical taxobox issue and would be better continued at the ] project page. I've copied the last part of this discussion into a new topic on ] and added a reply there. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Connected taxoboxes== | ==Connected taxoboxes== | ||
Revision as of 15:13, 19 April 2024
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all Taxobox subpage talk pages should redirect here. |
 | 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. |
 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Connected taxoboxes
In the article stub about Cytherellidae the taxobox says it belongs to the order Platycopida, which is correct. And the taxobox in the article stub about Punciidae says that too belongs to the order Platycopida, which is wrong. It belongs to the order Palaeocopida. But when I change the info in the taxobox to correct it, the taxobox describing Cytherellidae changes too, from Platycopida to Palaeocopida. And vice versa. The two taxoboxes are connected, so when you edit it in one of the mentioned articles, the same thing happens in the other. Is there a way to separate them? Hipporoo (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipporoo: Fixed. I'm not sure what you tried to changed or where, but you needed to change the taxonomy template for Punciidae. I changed the parent taxon in Template:Taxonomy/Punciidae to Puncioidea, which was already set up correctly as part of Palaeocopida. For more on the use of the automated taxobox system see WP:Automated taxobox system. — Jts1882 | talk 07:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Deprecated vs. discouraged, and should all empty discouraged parameters be removed?
There are many parameters listed as "deprecated" under Template:Taxobox#Template parameters, but they appear in the template code and in the documentation, albeit with heavily caveated use cases. They are:
|image_width=|image_caption_align=|range_map_width=|alliance=|variety=|color_as=
plus their numerical counterparts, |image2_width=, etc.
It would be more accurate to change these to "discouraged", since the only parameter that's actually deprecated, from what I can tell, is |image_size=, since it has been removed from the immediate (i.e. non-nested) template code and from the documentation.
Related question: should all empty discouraged parameters be removed? I've been removing empty |image_width= (only) since at least 2020. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: "deprecated" is one of three qualifiers for parameters allowed by TemplateData. The others are "required" and "suggested". I've long thought there should be another qualifier for "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases" (I'm not sure how to name it in a concise way).
|color_as=is an instance of "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases". I suppose|image_caption_align=may be as well, but I have never come across it being used in my time on Misplaced Pages.
- Variety is correctly deprecated;
|varietas=should be used instead of|variety=Most of the parameter names for ranks are Latin not English (regnum/classis/ordo/familia, not kingdom/class/order/family with phylum/genus/species being the same in Latin and English).
|alliance=is also English, but isn't used anywhere. I'm pretty sure I set it to "deprecated" as work-around when trying to find articles that used it and update them to recent classifications that didn't use that rank (the TemplateData Error Report will show articles using a particular parameter/value when a template has few transclusions. When a template has many transclusions (over 50k, I think) the option to see which articles use a particular parameter is disabled unless that parameter is marked as deprecated).
- The "_width" parameters are correctly deprecated. "_upright" parameters should be used instead, although I would say the "_upright" parameters also fall into "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases" (the only reason to over-ride the default image display size is when an image has an extreme aspect ratio (tall/narrow or short/wide) that makes it display very large/small).
- Any of the parameters you've listed should be removed when empty. Almost all the "_width" parameters should be removed even when non-empty (but the image should be checked to see if it does have an extreme aspect ratio that would merit using an "_upright" parameter instead). Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I didn't realize that about TemplateData. Looking through the archives, I found a relevant discussion 5 years ago at #Add support for more sophisticated "required" options, which predicts the need for a "deprecated unless" parameter (oh, you're in that discussion too!), but to submit a bug request on Phabricator. I thought there'd be a much simpler solution to this, so if/when I get around to it, I'll look through phab tickets to see if something like this actually made it there, and go from there.
- I think I'll stick with removing these empty parameters for now, and look for the special cases you mention after. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:,
|color=meets your stricter definition of deprecated; it's been removed from the template code, and I just removed it from the documentation. It should definitely be removed when empty. It could be removed when non-empty, as it does not do anything. I have been slowly working through the articles with "color = lightgrey" (the only value specified now) and converting them to automatic taxoboxes. I wouldn't mind at all if you got rid of all non-empty instance|color=now, but it is something I intend to eventually achieve myself if nobody else does it. "image_width=220px" is another bugbear of mine (220 is already the default), that I'm inclined to address with automatic taxoboxes, but wouldn't mind of you went ahead and got rid of it while leaving manual taxoboxes in place. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:,
- In my long template-editor experience, it is best to remove from the documentation entirely any parameters that should no longer be used at all. The fact that they still might work, until all instances of the parameter in use have been removed/replaced, is immaterial. That they still function (at least for now) will be apparent in the source code, but if they are included in the documentation, then people will use them anew, no matter what the documentation says. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree about parameters that should not be used at all. However, the limited classification available in TemplateData does cause some problems. There are some parameters, like
|color_as=, that are needed only in exceptional cases, so are "deprecated", but need to be supported indefinitely. - The
image_widthparameters are a different matter. I would like to remove them altogether. However, right now this tool reports 3,136 uses of|image_width=(plus some for other image width parameters), which ideally would be checked first. On the other hand, these parameters don't exist in the automated taxobox templates, like{{Speciesbox}}and{{Automatic taxobox}}, so perhaps just removing them from the manual taxobox template would be ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)- Right. I meant just for the ones that are "dead" parameters to remove them from the docs and replace or remove them, as needed, from "the wild". For stuff with occasional use, it would need to remain in the docs, just really clearly documented as to what unusual cases to use them for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with removing support for
|image_width=from the code. None of the instances of 100px actually have an image. The remaining values range from 200px to 250px which isn't really a big enough difference from the default 220px to "fix" images with extreme aspect ratios. 234px/235px is used in fungus articles with {{Mycomorphbox}} to make the taxobox display at the same width as the mycomorphbox. If different widths in taxobox and mycomorphbox is even a problem in the first place, a better solution for that would be to make mycomorphboxes display at the same width as a taxobox with a 220px image. Plantdrew (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)- It would be best to have a bot remove all the instances of
|image_width=first, to avoid all the pages showing up in the taxobox error-tracking categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- It would be best to have a bot remove all the instances of
- I'd be fine with removing support for
- Right. I meant just for the ones that are "dead" parameters to remove them from the docs and replace or remove them, as needed, from "the wild". For stuff with occasional use, it would need to remain in the docs, just really clearly documented as to what unusual cases to use them for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree about parameters that should not be used at all. However, the limited classification available in TemplateData does cause some problems. There are some parameters, like
COSEWIC DD
@Jts1882, Spacepotato, and Pengo: COSEWIC's website says DD is a valid status. We should update our graphics and taxobox to handle it. Please? :) Ijust fixed Arctic wolf to correctly list COSEWIC (when it was listing a full link) and the DD turned into "invalid". - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've added support for DD to the taxobox, but left it without an image. This would have to be created especially and is more than just adding a colour to the blank image template. — Jts1882 | talk 17:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, and thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend using a blank COSEWIC with "Data Deficient" below:
- Data Deficient
- which would match Misplaced Pages's IUCN DD graphic, e.g. see Allen's spotted bat
- If you're wondering why it's like that for IUCN's, I deliberately left out "DD" and "NE" from the image. I'm no graphic designer, but when I made it I wanted to keep it simple and easy to glance, so I chose not to include a separate circle for IUCN's "DD" status because it would stop the circles being in order of threat status, and would make the graphic more confusing (it would be like replacing a fuel gauge with a bunch of indicator lights). Having no filled circle communicates "We don't know", and having no graphic at all communicates "Not evaluated". I should mention that when IUCN made their own graphic they did include NE and DD though (and put Extinct on the right side, making it feel like every species is in an inevitable march towards extinction). —Pengo 23:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have a go at fixing it but I don't want to mess up 75,000 articles today, and I have no idea how this template works any more. I'm in awe that it continues to exist. —Pengo 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've followed your suggestion. The template where it is set is {{taxobox/species}}, not one of the most intuitively named templates. — Jts1882 | talk 07:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Y'all are the best! Much thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've followed your suggestion. The template where it is set is {{taxobox/species}}, not one of the most intuitively named templates. — Jts1882 | talk 07:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have a go at fixing it but I don't want to mess up 75,000 articles today, and I have no idea how this template works any more. I'm in awe that it continues to exist. —Pengo 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
TemplateStyles tag generates empty paragraph
@Jdlrobson: Blue petrel has an empty paragraph containing a style tag at the top because of this edit adding a TemplateStyles tag to {{taxobox/core}} on an empty line before the table. One way to prevent the creation of a paragraph would be to put the style tag after the |} like this. — Eru·tuon 14:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)