Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Fossil Range charts?[edit]

What's the story with the fossil range charts being added, as in Lizard and Therizinosaurus? I suppose it's a good idea, though it makes the boxes that much more cluttered... but at present, the diagram does not appear to correspond with the listed range, at least in my browser (Safari). For example, the green range highlight is under Paleogene for Therizinosaurus when it should be Cretaceous. Lizard range is Jurassic to recent, but the highlight only extends into the early part of the Cretaceous. Dinoguy2 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agh. I'd tested it in Firefox and IE, and had assumed that Safari would follow suit - evidently it's being problematic as usual. Grr! Just when I thought I had a day off...
My rationale behind producing it is that "late Permian" doesn't mean anything to the average layman, and providing a timeline brings the fossil range into context for the vast majority of our readership without forcing them to click on links to pages which often don't help that much anyway... Verisimilus T 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like the idea (though I missed the implementation for some reason). But indeed, squeezing everything from Precambrian to Holocene into 250 or so pixels is wellnigh impossible... Dysmorodrepanis 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who missed it, can we see a screenshot? I've thought about doing something like it before too, but compressing hundreds of thousands of years into just hundreds pixels is quite a challenge. —Pengo 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example Taxobox
Temporal range: 254.1–65.5 Ma Triassic - Cretaceous
Scientific classification
Rangea fossilii
I just moved it to Template:Fossil range for present. See example on the right. Verisimilus T 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms list[edit]

Is there any preferred way how to list synonyms? I.e., alphabetically or by date of publication? I have found myself doing either, and found each approach to be equally advantageous and disadvantageous. Depending on the specific taxon, either may be easier to maintain. Usually, an alphabetic list will be easier to read and maintain. But e.g. in Falcon, there have been so many preoccupied names and names that were later "fixed" believing they were preoccupied (but weren't) that there is no getting around a chronological listing. Dysmorodrepanis 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, Texas FAR[edit]

Marshall, Texas has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Okiefromoklatalk 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New rank needed[edit]

I am currently working on the Lepidopterans, whose taxonomy presents a rank "series" between superfamily and family. It is not the same-named "series" in the botanical sense of the term, but a distinct and different rank. We need to have it added to the taxobox template... For the time being, I am using the variable "series" in my lepidopteran taxobox (knowing that the taxob appears at the wrong place) and waiting for something better. Oeropium 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on the genus Epidendrum of the plant family Orchidaceae, whose taxonomy presents a rank "subsection" between "section" and "species" (not "series"). For now, I will use "series" for "subsection" to avoid moving "section" to "subgenus." I await something better. Jay L09 (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, there is possible to add any rank like this, for example in Argnidae, but it will appear as unranked. Other possibility is to add anything with br tag, for example like this:

|sectio = [[Schistochila]]<br/>subsection [[Carinata]]

Even if there is no needed taxonomic rank yet, there can not be written different rank in taxobox. --Snek01 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the taxobox at an article like Epidendrum denticulatum? My first answer would probably be to keep subgenera, sections, subsections, etc, out of taxoboxes. Now, that's a great answer when there are dozens of species. When there are 1100, as with Epidendrum, I'm not sure whether to stick to it. But calling a subsection a series seems confusing (well, inaccurate, really). Incidentally, how many species are left in Epidendrum if the segregate genera are recognized? For Eupatorium, I pretty much decided that there wasn't much choice but to accept a narrow circumscription of the genus for taxobox purposes, because the wide circumscription is darn close to the whole tribe Eupatorieae (well, the fact the specialists seem to agree on the narrow circumscription certain helps there). One more detail: there's an issue with where these links point to. Right now this article has a section link to Schistochila which is a Marchantiophyta genus. I think the right link is Epidendrum sect. Schistochila (probably with some piping to put in some italics) but you might want to double-check that at WT:PLANTS. Kingdon (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It might be helpful to have a complete example of a Virus taxobox on the usage page. After all, they are quite different from plant and animal boxes. Rl (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN Red List status[edit]

An IUCN representative contacted me, asking if I could make a minor change to Template:Taxobox so that "(IUCN Red List)" is shown instead of "(IUCN)" when conservation data comes from the IUCN Red List. In order to keep discussion together, please leave any comments at Template talk:Taxobox#IUCN Red List status. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another color for animal-taxobox?[edit]

I almost exclusively work on animals (mammals) here and I don´t like this ugly pink box very much. I am always happy when I go back to the german wiki . How do you like this nice green-brown-grey box down here for example:-)

Asian Golden Cat
Catopuma temminckii.jpg
Scientific classification
C. temminckii
Binomial name
Catopuma temminckii
(Vigors & Horsfield, 1827)

I dont think, it would collide with any other taxobox color.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animalia rgb(235,235,210)
Archaea rgb(195,245,250) also Nanoarchaeota (Nanarchaeota), Korarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota
Archaeplastida rgb(180,250,180) also Plantae and Viridiplantae
Bacteria rgb(220,235,245)
Eukaryota rgb(245,215,255) For eukaryotes with no other colour defined, including Excavata, Amoebozoa and Opisthokonta
Fungi rgb(145,250,250)
Ichnotaxa rgb(230,222,214)
incertae sedis rgb(250,240,230)
SAR rgb(200,250,80) also Chromalveolata
Ootaxa rgb(250,250,220)
Viruses rgb(250,250,190) also Viroids
I'm fine with this change. – UtherSRG (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never liked the pink. That said, there are a ton of articles that would either need to be changed to this color or updated to display the color automatically. I think there are still a lot out there that are pink because they say "taxobox color = pink" instead of being pink due to the kingdom. --Aranae (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to remove all these unnecessary parameters with a bot. I have a bot lying around that could do this, and I have code that parses taxoboxes; I could do this, if you want this. Best would be to first convert all taxoboxes, and then change the code in the template. That would switch the colours in all taxoboxes at once. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't given it much thought but, yes, I think I'd prefer the grey-green colour too.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good! Thank you all. I think it would be best to use the bot from Eugene van der Pijll. Probably we also should ask some other users, which work a lot on animals, what they think about a new color. --Altaileopard (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, pink is a very intuitive colour for animals, just as green is for plants. I think that the benefits of being able to tell the classification at a glance outweigh aesthetic considerations. The colour scheme should be as logical as possible (and preferably change as rarely as possible so people don't have to relearn it) to give it any value. Otherwise we may as well just set one standard colour for all taxoboxes. I do agree, however, that the current shade of pink is a bit putrid: maybe someone could suggest a more pleasant shade of pink? Verisimilus T 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've posted a note of this discussion on WP:TOL; it might be worth advertising it elsewhere too?[reply]
Hmm, why do you think that Pink is intuitive for animals? I think there are more brown animals than pink animals on this earth and aesthetic considerations weigh quite a lot, if you look at something every day! I think the relearn process should not be too difficult.... and you can have a look at the taxobox, if you are not shure if a creature is an animal or not:-) Thanks for posting it on TOL.--Altaileopard (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note that I also like/support the change to the "green-brown-grey" colour too. I don't think the colour has to "say" animal, just as we don't use a different font or shape of taxobox or anything else to "say" it's an animal taxobox. The colour will become a symbol by itself. —Pengo 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Pengo said. Even if we don't do this though, it would be good to have a bot remove color overrides from taxoboxes as they're a bit of a vandal magnet. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the new colour is just a bit too close to the one used for incertae sedis. As animal taxoboxes are the most frequent in wikipedia (about 51,000 of them...), and i.s. taxoboxes are so very rare, this will be confusing for people landing at a i.s. article. Better change that one as well. Perhaps to pink?
Altaileopard, pink (or any shade of red, extually) is a very intuitive colour for animals. Have you ever tried to cut one open? Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to open? A snail, a beatle or a sea cucumber? Actually when I think of a vertebrate, I do not think about an open one at first.
joking apart.. I think there are not so much incertae sedis, we can change this color. We can also search another color for the animals and I would be also fine with one color for all taxoboxes. But I would love to have a nicer color than this pink.--Altaileopard (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for bot approval for this task: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Eubot 5. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to add my support for changing the animal taxobox colour, I like the one used above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One question: I know that originally some considerable work was done to make sure that the various box colours were separable by those with all forms of colour-blindness. Will they still be able to distinguish the new colour from all of the others? MeegsC | Talk 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update -- The bot run is done; the color parameter has been removed from almost all animal articles, and the taxobox color may be changed now. (I will do another bot run after the next database dump, to catch all articles created in the last 2 months.) Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, thanks a lot! When I go through this talk, it seems to me, that no one is really against the new color and many like it. I don´t know how to check this thing with the color-blinds, but I think it would not be a very big problem, as the taxonomy is written in the box, too. --Altaileopard (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Color-blindness isn't really an issue—even some of the existing colors may well be more difficult to distinguish for some people with color-blindness, but the Kingdom name is there for backup. The issue instead is color contrast; if the foreground and background color intensities aren't enough different, some users won't be able to read the text at all. The proposed new color passes in that regard.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to have stopped, so to rekindle the interest in this issue, I've just pulled the switch... Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deuteranomalous and cannot distinguish the new animal color from the incertae sedis' color. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love the change, but as someone who is color-blind, I see virtually no difference between incertae sedis and Animalia now. I don't consider it a major issue, since the text stands out, but I thought I should mention it since it was mentioned in earlier discussion above. Justin chat 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, when making color changes [1] can help color determinations for us colorblind folk. Justin chat 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the colors should at least not be too alike. If you are weak in green/yellow hues as I am, animals and incertae sedis are really all but identical. Perhaps change incertae sedis to WhiteSmoke (F5 F5 F5) or Linen (FA F0 E6) – distinct colors, and also good because they are almost but not quite white, with an indiscriminate hue that "can be anything". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this problem is almost non-existent: there are 14 articles in wikipedia that have regnum incertae sedis: Pteridinium, Arkarua, Mawsonites, Charniodiscus, Yorgia, Hiemalora, Aspidella, Parvancorina, Bradgatia, Nimbia, Chondroplon, Swartpuntia, Trilobozoa, Picobiliphyte. I'll list some possible colors for these articles below (please add more options, if you have them). I suggest to wait a week to see if people like the new colour for the animal boxes, and to change the incertae sedis boxes when we're sure about that. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are another 24 articles that have their colour hardcoded to the current i.s. colour (including e.g. Eukaryote and Opisthokont). I'll change those taxoboxes so that they will be handled automatically. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
pink Formerly used for Animalia
whitesmoke Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis
linen Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis
Whitesmoke and linen both have too little contrast with the background; they are barely distinguishable from no colour at all, which is aesthetically unpleasing. And we've just managed to get rid of the "horrible pink colour"... let's not bring it back already!
We do need to change the IS colour – but I think we need to find a better solution.
Also, worth nothing that the last time I looked, VISCHECK website linked to above only works on images, not on hard-coded #XXXXXX values.
Verisimilus T 09:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas why Dinosaur is still pink? I see it as such on two computers, have refreshed the cache, and my PC is set up to delete cache and browsing history after a session anyway. It is linked to [[Animal]]ia and has no embedded color element. J. Spencer (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was pink for me as well, so it was probably an internal wikipedia cache problem. If you see another pink one, just do a null edit (click "edit", and save without changing anything), and it will be fixed. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. J. Spencer (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Eugene van der Pijll!!!! The articles are looking much better now and it is more fun to upgrade an article in style and text. For I.s. I would prefer the whitesmoke as it appears somewhat undetermined to me --Altaileopard (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favour of this change. My first impression was that someone had modified the colour for a dragon stub I was fixing. The grey-green is to close to ... grey and green. This could be a problem when viewed alone in the article. I think it is generally editors that have to look at them 'all day', but if the colourcan 'say' animal then that is a bonus. The pinkish colour was slightly off, certainly in the murky palette above, but it is used overwhemingly in isolation. I agree with the view that a reddish hue suggests animal, just as green suggests plant, that is why I became used to seeing it. I hope to see further discussion on this; perhaps discussion of the change can be directed here, assuming anyone else wants to comment. cygnis insignis 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to me, booger just doesn't suggest animal. Werothegreat (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you don´t like this colour but I think almost everything is nicer and perhaps even more typical for animals than the old pink. @cygnis insignis: I saw, that you work a lot on reptiles. Actually the green element seems perfect for this group in my view......?--Altaileopard (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to do more plants, but it is appropriate for that group. I thought someone had modified the colour at a reptile page to their personal preference. I'll use the bikeshed anyway. cygnis insignis 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the new incertae sedis colour difficult to distinguish from the Archea and Rhizaria colours on my monitor... perhaps the new hue is not ideal? Verisimilus T 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of my reasons for finally changing that colour is to restart the discussion; I'm happy to see that it worked :-)
If you cannot see the difference between the Rhizaria and the incertae sedis colours, you may want to adjust the brightness of your monitor; they are not at all similar IMHO. But I agree about the Archaea. This is less of a problem than the old incertae sedis colour. The average visitor will not have visited Archaea articles frequently enough to be used to that colour, but there are so many animals that he will be conditioned to see that colour as animals; including the very similar old i.s. colour. But yeah, we need a new colour for incertae sedis. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
E0D0B0 Previous incertae sedis colour
linen Current incertae sedis colour
F3E0E0 Archaea colour, for comparison
pink Formerly used for Animalia, now free to be re-used?
whitesmoke Proposed by User:Dysmorodrepanis
chartreuse Perhaps this yellow colour?
lemon Or this one?

These changes obvioiusly took place over a year ago, and I do not object to the new colors. However, has anyone coordinated these changes with other languages? I've been looking at other language articles, and the Animalia color seems to still be the old pink. I tested deleting the specified color pink, and the color does not change (i.e., the default color is set in the template). How do thse kinds of things coordinated across languages (or maybe they dont?). Donlammers (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Transient Orcas near Unimak Island, eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska
Transient Orcas near Unimak Island, eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska
Size comparison against an average human
Size comparison against an average human
Conservation status
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Cetacea
Suborder: Odontoceti
Family: Delphinidae
Genus: Orcinus
Species: O. orca
Does this need to be collapsible?
Binomial name
Orcinus orca
Linnaeus, 1758

Orca range (in blue)
Orca range (in blue)



Killer whale

I tried making a telescoping taxobox once (with hide/show bits) and failed, Thanyakij, however, has succeeded, and it's being used on Thai Wikipedia. I think it's cool. I've copied the message from my talk page (which includes links to examples):

Hello Pengo, I'm Thanyakij (or Aqua) from Thai Wikipedia. I know that you are making the TeleTaxo. I'm just complete the new Intelli-TeleTaxo which can change the color follow the regnum and collapse un-important data so you can copy and change something to suit different conditions in En-Wiki's work. for a good example see เสือ and หลาวชะโอนทุ่ง. For more information, you can contact me at my user talk page. Enjoy your new taxobox. -- aIqCuEa 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this on English Wikipedia? —Pengo 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I'd just been thinking about doing something similar myself. It shouldn't be difficult; I'll knock up a prototype when I get the chance. Verisimilus T 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is. I've added a couple of parameters so that everything is represented.
The presence of the "[hide]" thingy makes the titles off centre. There's not much that can be done about this without alienating users with smaller monitors, but I don't see that it should be a problem. Verisimilus T 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, there are still a couple of issues with the code. Removed for a moment. Verisimilus T 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Now repaired (a bit). There will still be a couple of issues to resolve if this is taken forwards. Verisimilus T 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice and certainly must have taken you quite a bit of effort, but is there really a need for this? What problem is this addressing? Are there really that many taxoboxes out there that are too long that they require hide/show links? Personally, my initial reaction is that the hide/show links detract from the aesthetic of the taxobox. But I'm sure I could be swayed if an argument for functionality is presented. And I'm just curious, do any other infoboxes on the English Wikipedia do this? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is nice! I don´t know if there is really need for this feature, but I think it is definitely not a disatvantage.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could incorporate default settings, such as "state=auto, collapsed, expanded". Shorter articles could used a collapsed version, while longer articles could use an expanded version. If a taxbox has, say, more than 3 or 4 sections, the main sections (status,classification) can default to expanded while the secondary sections (diversity,synonyms) can default to collapsed. --Old Hoss (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Doing that reminded me - is there a point to the separate {{{binomial}}} parameter? What information does it contain that isn't already covered by {{{genus}}}, {{{species}}} and {{{species_authority}}}? Verisimilus T 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit redundant, but I prefer the binomial parameter. Some editors choose to not include the species parameter, so doing away with it might disrupt those taxoboxes (I'm sure that could be fixed by a bot, though). I think it adds something to boxes where infrageneric ranks are included, separating the genus from its abbreviation in the species parameter (e.g. Utricularia dichotoma). In that situation, it reconnects the genus name with the abbreviation (e.g. U. dichotoma). Just my two cents. --Rkitko (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of taxoboxes that omit the species parameter could be overcome - it would be trivial for a bot to enumerate the articles with a binomial parameter but no species parameter, and possibly even to fix them automatically. As far as I'm aware, the binomial parameter is indeed redundant, and I support the proposal to abandon it.

But if we're going to tackle this, we should be handling the "trinomial" argument too, since these are intrinsically related. As usual, the devil's in the details. :-( The required functionality would appear to be something like:

  • if there is no species parameter, don't present anything (assuming Rkitko's issue above is sorted out);
  • if there is a species parameter, but not a subspecies, variety or forma parameter, present a binomial box of the form Genus species Authority;
  • if the taxon is an animal, and there is an infraspecific rank parameter, present a trinomial box of the form Genus species subspecies Authority
  • if the taxon is a plant,
    • if there is a forma parameter,
        • if the forma parameter is identical to the species parameter (i.e. an autonym), present a trinomial box of the form Genus species Authority f. forma;
        • if the forma parameter is not the same as species parameter, present a trinomial box of the form Genus species f. forma Authority;
    • else if there is a variety parameter,
        • if the variety parameter is identical to the species parameter (i.e. an autonym), present a trinomial box of the form Genus species Authority var. variety;
        • if the variety parameter is not the same as species parameter, present a trinomial box of the form Genus species var. variety Authority;
    • else if there is a subspecies parameter,Authority
        • if the subspecies parameter is identical to the species parameter (i.e. an autonym), present a trinomial box of the form Genus species Authority subsp. subspecies;
        • if the subspecies parameter is not the same as species parameter, present a trinomial box of the form Genus species subsp. subspecies Authority;

With plants, it is possible to publish a variety of a subspecies, in which case it is legitimate to write either "Genus species subsp. subspecies var. variety" or just "Genus species var. variety". I can't see any objection to the taxobox code mandating the shorter form.

I don't know what the requirements would be for other kingdoms - I think fungi and algae use the botanical code?

If this gets sorted out, there may be a case for revisiting Verisimilus' earlier proposal to automate some of the italicising. Hesperian 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi and algae do indeed use the botanical code, but as far as I know, they are neglected enough not to have been blessed with subspecies, varieties and so forth... Verisimilus T 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the required code at Template:Taxobox binomial. The results of testing can be found in my sandbox. This template provides the output of the logic specified above.
To put it into operation, the following steps need to be taken:
Replace this code:
! [[Binomial nomenclature|Binomial name]]
{{!}}- style="text-align:center;"
{{!}} '''<span class="binomial">{{{binomial}}}</span>'''<br /><small>{{{binomial_authority|}}}</small>}}
|- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
! [[Trinomial nomenclature|Trinomial name]]
{{!}}- style="text-align:center;"
{{!}} '''{{{trinomial}}}'''<br /><small>{{{trinomial_authority|}}}</small>}}
|- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"
{{taxobox binomial|R={{lc:{{{regnum|}}}}}|G={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{genus|}}}}}}}|sp={{lc:{{{species|}}}}}|f={{lc:{{{forma|}}}}}|var={{lc:{{{variety|}}}}}|ssp={{lc:{{{subspecies|}}}}}}}
Further amend the Taxobox so that the specific name is not shown on its own line NB this is problematic - consequences need considering and a workaround creating
Using a bot, edit existing taxoboxes so that:
  1. Existing "binomial" and "trinomial" names are removed, with forma, variety, or subspecies information moved to the appropriate parameters
  2. Existing "species" parameters have leading "X." removed where initial letter of Genus has been included.
This leaves the following issues:
  1. The microformat tags may need amending; I'm not sure about the syntax but I'm sure the relevant people will be able to amend this to their needs with ease.
  2. What is the most appropriate parameter for specifying the "authority"?
  3. Integration with the existing Taxobox tabular format is not fully tested.

Comments and thoughts welcome; I will respond on my return in ~ a week. Verisimilus T 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed this, and the code seems fine to me, for what it is trying to do; it doesn't solve the whole problem yet though.
I may have misunderstood your original proposal. I thought that you were saying that the binomial parameter was redundant because we could code the taxobox to figure out its use for us. I really love the idea of passing the taxobox data rather than marked-up text, and having the taxobox "know" about both the rules of nomenclature and our stylistic conventions, and mark it all up correctly for us. However it now seems that your original proposal was that the binomial field, as displayed, is redundant to the species field; this is true, but I'm not sure whether it should be removed or not. It probably needs to be talked about some more. Fortunately, the issue of whether to remove the species field is a side-issue now. There's enough here to digest, so we might as well swallow it before taking a mouthful of the field redundancy issue.
I'm sure I've seen some articles with manuscript names. Unpublished species generally aren't notable, so don't usually have articles, but sometimes the IUCN jumps the gun and adds a species to a threatened list before it has been formally published, and a few such species articles have turned up here. We need to handle that, probably by including code that kills off the "guessed" binomial/trinomial box, and replaces it with a Manuscript name box.
I think you have to continue to accept genus_authority, species_authority, variety_authority, etc, and figure out which one should be used in the binomial/trinomial box. This is necessary because some monotypic taxon taxoboxes display multiple authorities (e.g. Emblingia); and to include a separate authority argument would only be re-introducing the redundancy you've worked so hard to remove. It is pretty easy to fix: the functionality I laid out above should be changed to, e.g.
  • if the variety parameter is identical to the species parameter (i.e. an autonym), present a trinomial box of the form Genus species Variety_authority var. variety;
Hesperian 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other difficulty is how to handle taxoboxes like the one on Minke Whale. Hesperian 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like incorrect usage. If all species of Minke are being dealt with in one taxobox, the subdivision rank species section should be used, rather than the binomial section. E.g. Apatosaurus (or any dinosaur article, we only create articles down to genus level for most). Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But that doesn't mean we can just break it. We either have to handle it, or undertake the agonising process of identifying and correcting the misuses (and possibly convincing people to let them stay corrected). Hesperian 07:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting sections[edit]

Light sooty albatross flying.jpg
Scientific classification

G.R. Gray, 1840
Type species
Diomedea exulans
Linnaeus, 1758

See list in text

4 genera, 21 species
Albatrosses distribution map.png


Posted that before... so as we have the nice example here now, I'll post it again... maybe now someone understands what I mean.

Wouldn't be better to have the following sequence of taxobox sections:

  • name
  • image
  • Conservation status
  • Scientific classification
  • Binomial name/Type species (depending on taxon; some may have neither)
  • map
  • Diversity
  • subdivision_ranks
  • synonyms

That would make for smoother and more logical reading I think. Because then, the type species would come immediately after the taxon for which it is the type species, and the diversity would come between the taxon's entire distribution and the taxon's subdivisions - the two taxobox items which really show this "diversity". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reorder is good. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make it a bit more visual (since the example taxobox is out of sight when you go to this section directly), I have adopted the albatross taxobox for this here purpose.
Alternatively, one could do
  • Binomial name/Type species
  • Diversity
  • map
I don't know which is better. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The order definitely needs a rearrange - this seems an excellent suggestion. Verisimilus T 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The albatross taxobox now suggests that the distribution map is of the type species that is named in the previous line. I definitely think that a map directly after diversity is better. (Also check what happens if type species and map are both given, and diversity is not.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eugène van der Pijll, that the type species should not be so tight at the map. That might be confusing for some people, which are not so involved in taxonomy. As I think the type species is not so important for the common reader, I would place it at the bottom, probably just above synonyms. Moreover I think "Diversity" and "Genera" should be united. --Altaileopard (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map could be lower (e.g. under "Diversity"), and/or it might simply get a header "Distribution" like any other section in the 'box (it is a separate section).
Placing "Diversity" and "Genera" together I think is not good - the titles in the albatross example suggest that they contain similar information, but actually they don't. "Diversity" gives a total overview about the diversity, whereas "Genera" is simply the "subdivision_ranks" and is the next lower taxonomic rank, which here is genera of course. But it can contain any taxonomic rank, and usually will contain a rank not mentioned in "Diversity" at all (see for example Passerine).
In short, "Diversity" contains information on biodiversity while what here is "Genera" contains information on systematics. (I simply added "Diversity" here for completeness - usually a family would not get such a section, only the higher ranks like classes to orders would)
Type species at the bottom - maybe, but kinda defeats the original proposal, which was to put the relevant information together so that the "train of thought" in reading the box top-to-bottom is not interrupted. Few taxa actually have this (because the correct information is abysmally hard to get... getting easier with more and more of the really old taxonomic works being digitized, but for most invertebrates it is still almost impossible)
While we're at it - linking the type species to the species page maybe? So that people can make sense of the strange names that this section will inevitably contain? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a rearrange, but I think subdivision_ranks should be at the very bottom. Diversity should be immediately above it as the two are very related. Also, type and synonyms should be next to one another, preferably with synonyms on top. They are also related in the sense that they are a bit for nomenclatural junkies. --Aranae (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any way to list the superfamily Apoidea above the Anthophila in the bee taxobox? Presently, I think the listing implies that Apoidea is included within Anthophila and is as such misleading. I tried playing around with "unranked_something" parameter, but nothing else than unranked_superfamilia works. --Yerpo (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Antophila taxon down; it's a bit of a hack. It should be done properly with a parameter "unranked_genus", but that doesn't exist. (Yet.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that kind of hack, interesting idea. I tweaked it a bit more but it's still not perfect and should be done the way you mentioned. Thanx anyway. --Yerpo (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the unranked_genus parameter, and updated the taxobox at Bee. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sensu field?[edit]

Is there any benefit of an additional field to specify the circumscription reference like "circumscription_ref=Clarke, 2004[1]" ? (See Uniramia, Bird etc.) Shyamal (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invalid conservation status[edit]

Given that Category:Invalid conservation status is robustly populated with fossil organisms that have |status=fossil in their taxobox, would it be feasible (or even desirable, given that many don't have |fossil_range, particularly our numerous ammonite articles) to have a bot go through and remove that element, similar to what Eubot did when taxobox color was linked to kingdom? J. Spencer (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be desirable! You can list a request at WP:BOTREQ. Verisimilus T 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will run Eubot to do this, you don't have to request this task. What do you want to replace it with? I don't like the idea of just throwing the information away. Perhaps "fossil = 1"? We can decide afterward how to display that information. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't really thought about replacement - would "fossil = 1" or whatever be a hidden/nondisplaying field? J. Spencer (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment, yes. But we should change the template to show it in some way, in my opinion. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the new "fossil = 1" be an element that should be standard to all fossil organisms, or treated as a placeholder until someone gets around to adding a fossil range? J. Spencer (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it should be standard. We need a parameter that says "extinct"; fossil_range alone does not imply this. See for example Leporidae. Perhaps "extinct=1" would be better, although it overlaps with the EXtinct status code. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be removing from view the only indication that the taxon is a fossil. How about instead, we simply change the taxobox code to tag fossils into Category:Taxoboxes needing a fossil range parameter instead of Category:Invalid conservation status. Hesperian 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a fossil range is not an indication that the taxon is a fossil. If you have a separate parameter "fossil=1", you can change the taxobox to show it. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If you're planning on adding a parameter, rather than just changing the way you use what is already there, then you should be having this discussion at Template talk:Taxobox. Hesperian 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think that the problem is that "status=fossil" is perfectly legitimate. It may not be associated with an endorsed status system, but it is still a perfectly reasonable conservation status. The status parameter is never going to be used for anything else in the case of fossils, so "status=fossil" is logically equivalent to "fossil=1". Why don't we propose that "status=fossil" be accepted as valid? Hesperian 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type_locality field, if it is not too much to ask[edit]

The missing field in the taxobox is type_locality. Would it be possible to implement this?--Wloveral (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is supposed to be for discussions on improving the taxobox documentation. Discussions on improving the functionality ought to be at Template talk:Taxobox. In practice the two talk pages are smudged together somewhat, but I still think you would be better off posting this request over there instead of here. Hesperian 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try knocking on that door.--Wloveral (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage at Thermococcus litoralis[edit]

The taxobox at Thermococcus litoralis is broken; however, I don't know if the edit that broke it is legitimate or not. Is this an appropriate classification? --- RockMFR 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic color and prokaryotes[edit]

Since the color of the taxobox is assigned automatically according to regnum, the color is not assigned automatically for any page on taxa belonging to the bacteria or archaea. Neither of these groups has been subdivided into kingdoms, and their pages do not list a value for regnum. To determine the color for prokaryotes, could the taxobox please check domain" for these taxa? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What to use for hybrid animals?[edit]

Hi All -

I was wondering whether anyone could suggest what kind of taxobox could/should be used for intergeneric hybrid animals? MidgleyDJ (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New template for in-line vernacular & scientitfc names[edit]

I have created {{Biota}} for the display of in-line scientific names, with the same draft "species" microformat used by taxoboxes.

So far, it works only for vernacular, binominal, trinominal and genus names (example on template documentation), but I'll add a few other ranks soon ; and more complex processing for Foo bar ssp. boo and other such formats, later.

It allows wiki-linking, and the optional emboldening of vernacular names, and italicises scientific names automatically.

Comments welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a broad statement and not intended as specifically targeted to this template, but it does apply. I worry that wikipedia is becoming overly reliant on templates. I think one of the goals is to have a simple form of markup that "anyone can edit." If you're a professional scientist and want to put in half an hour correcting the information on an animal on which you specialize, it would be nice if you can make some contributions using not much more than the tools at the top of the edit summary. My real beef remains with the use of complex markup in inline citations - the last thing we want to do is discourage people from citing`sources - but it applies elsewhere as well. I guess my question is, and I want to emphasize that there's a polite tone to these words on a page because I really appreciate the work that's done in creating these templates (not my expertise), is what purpose does it serve? How will it make things simpler for the editor? Is it meant to help standardize? --Aranae (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←If a template is written well, as I hope this one is, it should not dissuade an editor such as you describe from editing or creating pages. Consider this scenario:

  1. Editor A creates a page which mentions in passing "...the '''Blue Tit''' (''Parus minor'') eats ...".
  2. Editor B realises that this is a vernacular/ scientific name pair, and adds the template: "...the {{Biota|vernacular=Blue Tit|binominal=Parus minor|bold=y"}} eats ..." - note that the visual display on the page is unchanged.
  3. Editor C (or A, returning), knows that the bird's scientific name has changed, so changes the content of the page thus: "...the {{Biota|vernacular=Blue Tit|binominal=Cyanistes caeruleus|bold=y"}} eats ..."

Editors A & C do not need to know how the template works, or even of its existence. As to your latter point, this template not only aids the standardisation of display formats, but wraps the data in a microformat, making it more accessible to machines, and to user tools which allow it to be looked up on other sites, downloaded, aggregated, etc. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:You're being represented in the deletion debate as expressing "the opinion that the template is pointless". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Biota[edit]

Template:Biota has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for now, as it has been pointed out to me that Andy is currently not in a position to respond. Hesperian 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is back; TfD is live. Hesperian 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not evaluated Conservation status[edit]

Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Conservation status - I think that there is discrepancy in notes about using conservation status. There is not valid IUCN red list category Secure in use. On the other hand there is written in Taxobox documentation not to use Not evaluated (NE) category. Not evaluated category with appropriate reference (with date) is much more usefull than a some unreferenced guess about a secure species. I would like to use Not evaluated category in Taxoboxes. --Snek01 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status for Infra-specific Taxa[edit]

The Northern bluefin tuna is divided into two infra-specific taxa on the IUCN Red List: the Eastern Atlantic stock and the Western Atlantic stock. These two stocks have been assessed with two different levels of endangerment (Endangered for the Eastern stock, and Critically Endangered for the Western stock). Since it seems unnecessary to have two separate articles for these taxa, we're presented with the challenge of trying to figure out how to best represent these data in the taxobox. Currently, the entire Northern bluefin tuna population's status is listed by IUCN as 'data deficient', so in the spirit of wanting to present more information rather than less, it would be nice to have a method for presenting the conservation status of both stocks in one taxobox. Any ideas on how best to do this? Steamroller Assault (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page. —Pengo 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms field guidelines[edit]

The text perhaps needs to expand on what exactly should go and not go into the synonyms field. Perhaps this discussion on Talk:Black Drongo could help in improve the guideline. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consolidate the discussion Wikipedia_talk:TOL#Synonym_field_in_taxobox here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of what has been discussed so far there- it appears that there is no clarity on whether only "true synonyms" should be included or whether pro parte (or in part) synonyms, ambiguous, nomina nuda and misapplied names could also be included. Shyamal (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes and phylogenetic taxonomy[edit]

See also the discussion at :

At this moment we stil use taxoboxes with code based on Linnean taxonomy. This poses a problem when the taxonomy has shifted into the direction of phylogenetic taxonomy, using cladistics, as it is the case in Gastropoda. It is becoming more and more difficult to express the exact relations of the taxa in our traditional taxoboxes. If you look at the taxobox in Bornella and at its code, you'll see how awkward it looks. Can someone re-write the code, so that we can use clades, unranked clades (or subclades) and "informal groups" (see : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) for the meaning of "informal groups"). Maybe it would be better if we could split taxobox usage into taxoboxes with the traditional Linnean taxonomy and taxoboxes using phylogenetic taxonomy for taxa above the rank of superfamily (replacing the ranks suborder, order, superorder and subclass), while using the traditional Linnaean approach for all taxa below the rank of superfamily. Any help appreciated. JoJan (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very complicated matter. I would suggest to divide it into separate tasks. 1) What all information is needed to display in taxobox. 2) How should the taxobox look like for a reader. 3) How should the code look like to an editor.

Task 1) What all information is needed to display in taxobox. There is still possible to display all infomation in taxobox (at least for gastropods). Information is possible to write down in rows:

| unranked_ordo =
| unranked_ordo_authority =
| unranked_familia =
| unranked_familia_authority =

These few rows can display all possibilities for gastropods because there is no needed to write authority for two of them. Meantime there is necessary to write authority only for very few taxa. (see for example Pleurobranchidae which belongs to most complicated now.) Because there are no monotypic clades which contains mononotypic subclade. Meantime. Maybe there will be needed to write authority for three unranked taxa in the future and it is not possible now.

Are there any other taxa that primarilly uses taxonomy like this? For example, why there is no taxobox in the article asterids? (It is possible to write some.) Is there necessary to write other detailed information in Canellales instead of this?:

Kingdom: 	Plantae
(unranked): 	Angiosperms
(unranked): 	Magnoliids
Order: 	Canellales

Task 2) How should the taxobox look like for a reader. Now it looks somethis like this (example Pleurobranchidae):

Class:        Gastropoda
(unranked):   clade Heterobranchia
              informal group Opisthobranchia
              clade Nudipleura
(unranked):   subclade Pleurobranchomorpha
              Deshayes, 1832
Superfamily:  Pleurobranchoidea
              Gray, 1827

I think that it should look something like this:

Class:            Gastropoda
Clade:            Heterobranchia
Informal group:   Opisthobranchia
Clade:            Nudipleura
Subclade:         Pleurobranchomorpha
                  Deshayes, 1832
Superfamily:      Pleurobranchoidea
                  Gray, 1827

I think, the word (unranked) is not necessary. Am I right, that every clade is unranked? I hope that it can be done automatically, that such special words (clade, subclade, informal group, group) will be displayed on the left side of the taxobox.

Task 3) How should the code look like to an editor. This is the most complicated and it depends at two previous tasks. Now the code is like this:

| classis = [[Gastropoda]]
| subclassis = 
| superordo = 
| ordo = 
| subordo = 
| subclassis = 
| unranked_ordo = 
clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/>
informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]<br/>
clade [[Nudipleura]]
| unranked_ordo_authority = 
| superordo = 
| ordo =
| subordo =
| infraordo =
| unranked_familia = subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''
| unranked_familia_authority = [[Deshayes]], 1832
| superfamilia = '''[[Pleurobranchoidea]]'''
| superfamilia_authority = Gray, 1827

This code is quite complicated sometimes even for advanced wikipedians. There is used tag BR, but I am not sure, how to improve it. The only feature is, that we know, where will be rows placed:

  • | unranked_ordo = is placed always above ordo
  • | unranked_familia = is placed always above familia

We can theoretically make few new rows for taxobox: unranked_1 = , unranked_2 = , unranked_3 = , unranked_4 = , ... unranked_10 = . But if so, then we will lost the feature, that we know, where it will appear.

There is only and example how not to do it: We will choose any rank what we want (we know its position) and if we write a word clade, then that rank will display as a clade.

| classis = [[Gastropoda]]
| subclassis = clade [[Heterobranchia]]
| superordo = informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]
| ordo = clade [[Nudipleura]]
| subordo = 
| subclassis = 
| unranked_ordo = 
| unranked_ordo_authority = 
| superordo = 
| ordo =
| subordo =
| infraordo =
| unranked_familia = subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''
| unranked_familia_authority = [[Deshayes]], 1832
| superfamilia = '''[[Pleurobranchoidea]]'''
| superfamilia_authority = Gray, 1827

This code of example above is very misleading. Although it would be possible to display it in a good way similar as I suggested in task 2.

I am not sure what exactly JoJan suggested. JoJan, did you suggested to use some new template to be placed inside the taxobox? If so, how exactly it should appear? Are there any templates for phylogenic taxonomy already in use? If so, such templates (or any other solution) have to be easy to use also. I do not know how to solve the task three. --Snek01 (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Michal, you certainly gave it some thought. Your proposal
Class:            Gastropoda
Clade:            Heterobranchia
Informal group:   Opisthobranchia
Clade:            Nudipleura
Subclade:         Pleurobranchomorpha
                  Deshayes, 1832
Superfamily:      Pleurobranchoidea
                  Gray, 1827
looks like what I have in mind. It puts the words informal group, clade and subclade on the left side of the taxobox. Codes such as "unranked_ordo", that we have to use at this moment, are misleading, since in this taxonomy we no longer deal with ranks above the rank of superfamily. JoJan (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we know how the taxobox should be displayed. If this code below will be displayed as you proposed above, then I will be satisfied.
| unranked_familia = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/>
informal group [[Opisthobranchia]]<br/>
clade [[Nudipleura]]<br/>
subclade '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''

But we still do not know how the code should be like. My opinion is that this code acceptable, because I do not know a better one. This code is applicable for all existing gastropods. We can only change word "unranked_familia" with something else, but it will not help much and I do not know how to replace BR tag with something better. Suggestions how to improved the code are welcomed.

Or do you suggest a code like this? (note that there are repeating rows with a word "clade")

| clade = [[Heterobranchia]]
| informal_group = [[Opisthobranchia]]
| clade = [[Nudipleura]]
| subclade = '''[[Pleurobranchomorpha]]'''

It seems very simple, but it would demand to place it exactly in the correct place where it should display. But I am not sure if it is compatible with the actual philosophy way how the modern template of taxobox is written. I would like to hear an opinion from template makers too. --Snek01 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hesperian and I had talked about this sort of thing a while ago (link). He had some good ideas there and we echo some of the frustrations above. The problem is to know how many clades to put between ranks so that both ranks and clades will be useful to all groups of taxa. How many clades and in what places will everyone need? --Rkitko (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) needs to put five clades between classis and superfamilia. It is possible to place it inside the taxobox (see Orthalicidae for example), but how to do it to look good? --Snek01 (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to get rid of misleading code such as unranked_familia, since we're dealing with a clade and not a family. Instead we should be using codes such as |informal group_1 = ....; |informal group_2 = ....: clade_1 = ....; |clade_2 = .... ---> |clade_5 = ....; |subclade_1 = .... etc. With such codes the taxoboxes would display the right information in the right way. JoJan (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This area seems to be fertile ground for inconclusive discussions, but my advice is (still) to reduce the number of groups depicted in the taxobox. For example:
Kingdom: 	Plantae
(unranked)*: 	Angiosperms
(unranked)*: 	Magnoliids
Order: 	Canellales
Class: Gastropoda
Suborder*: Nudibranchia
Superfamily: Tritonioidea
Family: Bornellidae
(where * means I don't have a strong opinion about whether these say "clade" or "unranked" or pick a rank which seems moderately widely used). Having the text of the article give names for the various groups in between is fine, where it discusses phylogeny (although in some cases I'm not aware of such names existing, for example for the putative clade of Piperales plus Canellales), but they don't necessarily need to go in the taxobox. Kingdon (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement, and name field[edit]

Am I right to say the following statement is incorrect: Common names of higher taxa are always given in sentence case and in the plural (e.g. Marine hatchetfishes). If so the sentence should be removed. I also think something should be mentioned about the ability for article titles to be italicized when the "name =" field is removed. This is useful for species + genera without a common name. Jack (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the plural is correct (right?). As for capitalization, both here and for species, it seems like we should just be referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Common name capitalization (whose rules are kind of complicated/controversial) - in fact generally the name parameter should be omitted as the considerations for picking the article name itself are pretty much the same as for a taxobox name. Kingdon (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I've thought about it I'm wrong, and was unclear. I was thinking about article titles not being pluralized, rather than inside a taxobox, and was not referring to the capitalisation. One time where the name parameter can be of use is when referencing the common name authority (for e.g. when referencing MSW3), though that can be put into the lead. Jack (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Image" section needs update[edit]

The main Wikipedia SOP has changed, and in fact the "300px" referral to the MoS is false.

By now, almost every infobox outside ToL has been using fixed-width images for some time now, except for emblems, coats-of-arms and other simple graphic designs. Photos and maps in leading infoboxes are generally set to around 250px fixed-width.

It was argued that "users can set their default thumb width, hence the lead image needs no size parameter". But this is vapid, since only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers have an user account - most will have the default thumb with, which in taxoboxes a) looks ugly as hell (due to taxobox width > default thumb width) and b) for most images reduces quality to a point where too little detail can be discerned to fulfill the purpose of a lead image.

Judging from the number of WP editor accounts and the Alexa rating of WP, it seems that less than 10% (perhaps as few as 2-4%) of Wikipedia readers can change thumbnail display size. The rest are stuck with 180px thumbnails.

Thus, to agree with the overall Wikipedia MoS and its prevailing interpretation for article lead infoboxes, the policy should be changed to:

  • use of the image_width parameter in taxoboxes is not mandatory, but encouraged (as it is the lead image)
  • images should not be wider than 300px though
  • (from personal experience: depending on image width/heigth and article length, the image_width param should be between 200 and 260px. 200px for images far higher than wide, 260px for images far wider than high and for very very long articles)

It is also advisable - if you have tweaked your user account's display settings extensively - to view your contributions without being logged in. It is nice if the article looks very great under an editor's particular settings, but if 9 in 10 Wikipedia readers get a layout that sucks, it fails the purpose of Wikipedia.

Note that in-text images should still (almost) never have a size parameter, except when it otherwise breaks or messes up the layout, or for images containing lots of detail crucially relevant to the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, that Statement of principles (SOP) has changed. Where is the updated statement of principles? --Snek01 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See SOP #1. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare image code across Wikipedia as of 2006 and as of late 2008. Also compare in-text imagebox code. I think there might have been a global MoS proposal to drop image width altogether around 2007; if so it was repealed or dropped. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to be aware of the history of the image_width parameter. Part of the discussion in question is here for example. As you can see, the ToL policy does not conform to general Wikipedia policy since over a year. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italic article titles[edit]

It's possible to italicise titles of articles but there is no mention of how to do this on this page. I think that these 4 methods cover all eventualities:

  • If the "name" section in the taxobox is the same as the article name you can simply remove the "name" section. The article will be the same but the the title will be in italics. Here's an example diff: [2]
  • If the "name" section is a common name {{italictitle}} can be put in the article. e.g. [3]
  • If the article title has (genus), (species) or anything else in brackets in the title then {{italictitle}} also works - it just changes the first word in the title. e.g. [4]
  • If these don't work there's a manual way using the format: <span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">''Eurydice'' (genus)</span> This shouldn't be needed often but I did find some pages. e.g [5]

This is also posted here. Should this manual be changed to take account of this? I posted at WP:MOS but this is probably a better place thinking about it. Smartse (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of the basionym from other synonyms?[edit]

I would prefer to see the basionym of a species presented separately from all its other synonyms... What do you think ?Phn229 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I don't see the audience for the synonym section as being taxonomists, I see it as people who want to know whether some name they come across is the same species. If this is true, I don't see how the basionym-ness helps the typical reader. (Most people who care what a basionym is already know how to look it up on and I assume there are similar sites for zoology). Kingdon (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What might be more important is separating objective (nomenclatural) synonyms (including the basionym) from subjective (taxonomic) synonyms, since the former are always synonyms, and the latter may or may not be, depending on the reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Could a field be added for including the translation of the scientific name? I think that it would help a lot of people! Craig Pemberton (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's often harder to find than one might think (without WP:OR). We do have a List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names which is a few clicks away (follow "Scientific classification" link in the taxobox, then scroll down to "See also"). Kingdon (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdon's probably right. The paper containing the original description is probably the only safe source for most taxa. An etymology section is completely appropriate within the articles if hat's known. I have done that frequently when working on recently described taxa. --Aranae (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New script for species microformat[edit]

Those of you using the Operator add-on in Firefox might like to know that there is an updated script to read the 'Species' microformat emitted by the Taxobox. More exciting developments soon! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxobox[edit]

Your input is requested in a final round of testing at [[Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Ready_to_release.3F|]]. We are looking for volunteers to check for problems with the code before it is released. Thanks! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ ..