Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Requested move 4 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED.(non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

• Template:Automatic taxobox → Template:Infobox taxon
• Template:Speciesbox → Template:Infobox species
• Template:Subspeciesbox → Infobox subspecies
• Template:Infraspeciesbox → Template:Infobox infraspecies
• Template:Hybridbox → Template:Infobox hybrid
• Template:Ichnobox → Template:Infobox ichnotax
• Template:Oobox → Template:Infobox ootaxon

– To match other infobox template names - for example, we have {{Infobox element}}, not {{elementbox}}; {{infobox person}}, not {{personbox}} (or {{biobox}}); {{Infobox river}}, not {{riverbox}}. (Note that the 2 which exist are redirects to the correct names.) Note that, since we're probably going to depricate {{taxobox}} in favor of {{Automatic taxobox}}, I've requested to rename the latter, not the former. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unconvinced by the rationale for these moves.

• The term "taxobox" is very widely used by editors who work on organisms of all kinds; it's convenient and snappy. "Infobox" is too generic.
• There's no consensus for deprecating manual taxoboxes in favour of automated ones, and I see no likelihood of any agreement to deprecate them, so the renaming would be very misleading. The main infobox for taxa is {{Taxobox}}; it's used on almost 300,000 pages. The most commonly used automated taxobox, {{Speciesbox}}, is used on 35,000 pages; the next most commonly used, {{Automatic taxobox}} on only 8,500. So over 80% of taxoboxes are manual. (And in any case, the deprecation wouldn't be of {{Taxobox}} in favour of {{Automatic taxobox}}, but of manual taxoboxes in favour of automated ones.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal should be advertised at Template talk:Taxobox and probably other forums as well. This talk page is not watched by nearly enough of the people who would be affected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done; you could have done it yourself, in stead of commenting here - there's no policy against leaving notices about discussions started by othert users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposed title is misleading. There are many infobox templates built on top of {{Infobox}}. From a quick glance through Category:Science and nature infobox templates, I haven't found any templates named "Infobox foo" that aren't built on top of Infobox. However, there are templates such as the various taxobox templates, {{Chembox}} and some infoboxes for stars and planets in Category:Astronomy infobox templates that ARE NOT built on top of Infobox, and don't have "Infobox" in the title. I think it's more useful to have "infobox" indicate whether or not a template is built on the infobox backbone, then to use "infobox" in all infobox template titles and lose a means of tracking templates that aren't based on infobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Classification incorrect according to Jeppson Manual. Family is Lennoaceae. Other higher classification may not be correct also, not sure. 173.114.238.105 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The classification we use is that of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, the latest being the APG IV system. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance from template editor or admin requested

Hi there, I have closed the move request above (result: not moved) and I was wondering if someone (template editor or admin) could remove the notices that the discussion is on going? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I was able to do it on Template:Subspeciesbox, Template:Infraspeciesbox, Template:Hybridbox, Template:Ichnobox, and Template:Oobox. It just needs to be done on Template:Automatic taxobox and Template:Speciesbox. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This was handled by the bot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ludlow epoch misdirect

When Ludlow is specified in the temporal range it will be linked to Ludlow, the town and not the Ludlow epoch. Unless a replace template is used around this template. I will file an edit request. Robin De Schepper (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

Moved to Template talk:Geological range

Suggestion for a legend about what the "extinct" symbol means

disclaimer

Thanks for your patience, "if applicable", ... if I chose the wrong place to offer this "suggestion". I would be happy to copy or move this, ... OR to "incorporate" it "by reference" in some other location, if appropriate.

background

I just took a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheria (it was this specific version of that article ... in case you are interested); and MANY of the bullet points listed in the "taxobox" are preceded by a little "{{extinct}}" symbol ... which gets displayed as this symbol ("†") which looked (to me) like either a little dagger or a cross.

I eventually found out that the little "†" symbol means "{{extinct}}" ... but not until AFTER I had looked high and low to find a "legend" that said (something like) "here is what this symbol means." That happened only once I had wasted^H^H spent some time searching -- and I did eventually find, (WAY down at the bottom of the article -- right at the very bottom of a box that comes right before the "References" section!) -- a small legend, that said, [quote:], << "† = extinct" >>.

After I had done that,THEN I finally got the idea to click on "Edit" (really meaning to "View Source", since I fully intended to click on "Cancel" after a read-only session of inspecting the wikitext) ... and when I did that, I saw that the "†" symbol was represented by the wikitext "{{extinct}}"! (...which was interesting to know, but I would probably never have guessed that inspecting the wikitext was the quickest way -- ["almost" the only way] -- to find out what the "†" symbol meant).

SO ...

my suggestion

I suggest that all instances of said "taxobox" (or, maybe only those which contain "at least one" of those little << "†" /slash {{extinct}} >> symbols ... if that is not too hard to code) should be provided with a little legend at the bottom, saying (even if only for the benefit of clueless newbies, who don't know things that "should" be obvious...) that "† = extinct".

isn't automation great?

By the way, the wikitext for the automatic taxobox says -- at or near the TOP -- [quote:] "{{automatic taxobox | name = Eutherians". I do not exactly understand how that "automatic" stuff works instead of just saying something like (e.g.) "{{infobox Eutherians}}" or "{{infobox taxon ...}}" or whatever; but ... if I had to understand how all that stuff works, before I could even make a small suggestion like this one ... then, things would take even longer.

Any "consensus"? Or "other" comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: this is actually an issue for all kinds of taxobox, manual or automated. We've discussed it before, and there's general agreement that it's a good idea to wikilink the † symbol, and in a manual taxobox or in lists added manually, like subgroups, editors should wikilink the first occurrence. One problem with an automated taxobox is that the hierarchy is generated automatically from "taxonomy templates" (you need to read WP:Autotaxobox system to understand how), and these higher taxa can be extinct, but it's difficult to detect the first occurrence of the † and link only that, since multiple wikilinks are against policy. I'll give it some more thought. I have now wikilinked the first occurrence of † in the Eutheria taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for that kind reply. I was not really thinking about "wikilinking" anything ... although maybe that change that you made, recently, will help someone. Among the things that almost everyone (except me) "probably" already knew, (besides what the little "†" symbol means), is

• the fact that ... when someone hovers their (mouse) "cursor" over the little "†" symbol ... a little tooltip is displayed, which says "Extinct". (With my browser, at least, that little tooltip is in "reverse video"; ... that is, white letters on a black background.)

That kind of "telling the user "something useful" ... [well, doing that at least in the case where that user "happens" to know -- or guess -- or even "stumble upon" -- the fact that hovering the (mouse) "cursor" over the little "†" symbol ... will do something] does have some PROs and CONs. The main thing I can think of for the PROs, is the fact that it can -- in some cases -- tell the user something that is useful to know. The "problem" I see, (under the heading of "CONs") is that ... the user who does not know what the little "†" symbol means (I was in this situation myself, not long ago!) quite possibly might ALSO fail to know, that hovering the (mouse) "cursor" over that little "†" symbol ... will do something useful.

My "suggestion" was really more like, to just put in a little legend, near the BOTTOM of the infobox or taxobox or whatever it is, saying "† = extinct". That is where I looked for it ... and (although it does not seem to be in the article's "infobox" or {{taxobox}} at this time...) it does appear, down at the bottom of a certain BIG box (which might not really be an "info" box ... I think it uses the "{{clade}}" template) that appears in the "Eutheria" article (at least, in the specific version of that article, mentioned above). It appears in that article, right before the References section.

I hope this clears up what my "suggestion" was intended to be. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a legend would be useful. The legend at Eutheria is just editor-created text in a "box" created by div tags, which are not really the right way to set up boxes in Wikipedia. At present it's not possible to add "free" text to an taxobox. Ideally the presence of a † would be detected automatically and the legend added. I'm not sure this is possible, but I'll think about it. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

From ms-wiki

(Thread moved to User talk:Peter coxhead#From ms-wiki, as it doesn't really belong here.)

Template-protected edit request on 22 December 2017

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 13#Red pencil tool tip as it actually concerns all the automated taxobox templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mistitling

Note that the title of taxoboxes now seems to be forced to match the page name, not the {{taxon}} parameter. See examples in Halkieriid#Oikozetetes. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Martin, try using |name = in conjunction with |taxon =. This will allow a different taxobox title than the article title. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Smith609: Martin, the actual taxobox titling is performed in {{Taxobox name}} and this hasn't changed in substance since you last edited it in February 2012. Its documentation is clear that "the page's name in italicised form will be adopted as the name for the taxobox" when an explicit |name= hasn't been supplied. I have had it on my "to do" list for some time to look into the title given by default to a taxobox, since I think it should be the taxon name in preference to the page title if a taxon name is supplied. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Grand, thanks for looking into this. 2012 feels like a long time ago! Yes, using the taxon name rather than the page name as a default seems to make good sense to me. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Since {{Taxobox name}} currently has 167,000+ transclusions, any change of logic has the potential to affect a lot of pages. What I really wanted to know before working on this is how many taxoboxes would potentially be affected, i.e. how many don't have |name= and have the taxon name different from the page title. It's not clear to me how to find such cases. (Categories now don't work inside tables – I think they did in 2012 – and {{Taxobox name}} is called inside table construction, so it's not possible to generate a tracking category, which would have been one solution.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Using Wikidata

Is there any plan to migrate this automatic system to populate from Wikidata? — Ganeshk (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Module:Check for unknown parameters

@Peter coxhead and Plantdrew:. I came across this module and, as I know a lot of effort is expended cleaning up taxoboxes, I thought it might be useful. It can tag articles with extraneous parameters in the taxoboxes with an appropriate category and/or providing a warning message to editors. I've added it to the automatic taxobox in {{automatic taxobox/sandbox3}}.   Jts1882 | talk  12:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that will be a fantastic addition. It will be nice to see bogus parameters in real time rather than waiting for the monthly report that turns them up. Where did the list of "known" parameters from? It's got a parameter I've never seen in a taxobox (|image_caption_align=), a parameter that has never been supported although it's in a bunch of taxoboxes (|trend=), deprecated parameters (|image_width= and other width params), and parameters that work in other templates in the taxobox family, but not automatic taxobox (|binomial_authority=). Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I got the list of parameters using {{Parameters}}. I just substituted this template at the end of {{automatic taxobox}} to get the list of expected parameters. The addition in the sandbox version of ({{automatic taxobox/sandbox3}}) was simply {{subst:Parameters|check|base={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}} and it created the argument list. This is just another example of really useful utilities that people have create on Wikipedia.

Deprecated or undesired parameters can be removed from the list. Or they can be part of a different category.   Jts1882 | talk  20:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To check the working with a category see Category:Pages using Template:Automatic taxobox/sandbox3 with unknown parameters. It will pick up an example in my sandbox.   Jts1882 | talk  20:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

Hello, I want to inform you about a wrong subfamily in the automatic taxobox in the article Sitana. The correct subfamily would be "Draconinae" instead of "Agaminae". I was not able to correct it myself, because I don't know how to change the entries in the box. Thank you very much for your help in advance. Yours Maimaid (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Maimaid: I have made the change for you. In future it would be helpful if you could provide a citation along with a request for change. I've added a retile database reference.

Making the change yourself is very simple once you known how. Click on the red pencil icon in the taxobox and it takes you to a page showing the taxonomic hierarchy on the right. Choose the taxon you want to change, in this case Sitana and click edit. In the edit box you would have seen an item |parent=Agaminae. Changed it to |parent=Draconinae and click the publish changes button to change the taxonomic heirarchy for that genus. I also added the reference. Once you've changed a couple it becomes easy.   Jts1882 | talk  16:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thank you very much, also for the explanation! I must have been blind, because I just didn't notice the red pencil icon ..., sorry! I wish you a HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Regards from Germany --Maimaid (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I resolve a naming conflict?

I just looked Tribulus, which is a genus of plants. Definitely not in the animalia kingdom. Yet the automatic taxobox classifies it as such, because Tribulus is also the name of a genus of sea snails. I thought about editing but I don't want to mess things up. What is the correct way to resolve this conflict? vttoth (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vttoth: I have fixed it for you. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved the gastropod genus to separate template. And then added a genus parameter to the speciesboxes. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no experience with taxoboxes and I didn't want to mess things up. Glad I asked. vttoth (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Lua version released

I am now releasing a Lua version of this template. It has been extensively tested as a sandbox version, but if you notice any problems, please explain the issue below, and revert the update to Lua if the problem is serious.

The Lua version should support all the parameters currently used by the template. In addition, it handles |fossil_range= better, and corrects some major errors in the automatic italicization of page names (page titles) and in the provision and italicization of default taxobox names when |name= is absent. This should mean that {{Italic title}} is rarely needed.

The new version populates Category:Automatic taxoboxes relying on page title. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Documentation of the Automatic taxobox template

Please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 3#Documentation of the Automatic taxobox template – I'm seeking views on how this template's documentation should be organized. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How would we go about adding this to this infobox? This is the code we use at {{infobox medical condition}}

| label7 = Pronunciation | data7 = {{#if:{{{pronounce|}}}{{{pronunciation|}}}{{{pronounce comment|}}} |<!-- -->{{ubl|1={{{pronounce|}}}{{{pronunciation|}}}{{{pronounce ref|}}} {{{pronounce comment|}}}<!-- -->|2={{{pronounce 2|}}} }}}}

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of different ways to pronounce Botanical Latin names, so I probably wouldn't add a pronunciation section to an infobox (or anywhere). —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatic cladogram

Since we already have taxa in correct order with Template:Automatic taxobox, can we use this info to create something like {{Automatic cladogram}}? The idea is you put two parameters, name and depth and it would automatically draw a cladogram for you. For example: {{Automatic cladogram|Dinosauria|2}} would create a cladogram with Dinosaur as parent and two taxon ranks below.  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: this discussion is a duplicate of Wikipedia_talk:Automated_taxobox_system#Automatic_cladogram. Please discuss this proposal there. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic box errors for at Achaenodon and Helohyidae

Hi, as an AfC reviewer for Helohyidae I am asking for help on {{Automatic taxobox}} missing taxonomy template errors at Achaenodon and Helohyidae. It would be of great help for myself and DinosaursRoar, the creator of the articles to make them error free. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic box errors for at Giraffomorpha, Bovoidea and Cervoidea

Giraffomorpha Add Palaeomerycidae and Giraffoidea Bovoidea Add Antilocapridae and Bovidae Cervoidea Add Cervidae and Moschidae Antilocapridae will be transferred from Giraffoidea to Bovoidea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillow6 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What citations are you using for these changes?--Kevmin § 15:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Pillow6 with a request for references. The changes seem to be to the McKenna-Bell classification and the superfamilies are nsupported by molecular data. Giraffomorpha, might be valid and in recent use. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment on the talk page was edited to reverse my meaning. There are a lot of edits that need revisiting. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

type_species

Should not the type_species be automatically in italics? See Epidaus. Shyamal (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, as should the type genus. The sandbox version now does this (see below), but some more tests are needed before release, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tests revised because module changed 15 Aug 2020

Automatically italicized type species {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Epidaus |authority=Stål, 1859 |type_species=Zelus transverses }}	Epidaus Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hemiptera Suborder: Heteroptera Family: Reduviidae Tribe: Harpactorini Genus: Epidaus Stål, 1859 Type species Zelus transversus
Type species not automatically italicized as "<" found {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Epidaus |authority=Stål, 1859 |type_species=Zelus transverses <small>Burmeister, 1835</small> }}	Epidaus Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hemiptera Suborder: Heteroptera Family: Reduviidae Tribe: Harpactorini Genus: Epidaus Stål, 1859 Type species Zelus transversus Burmeister, 1835
Manually italicized type species {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Epidaus |authority=Stål, 1859 |type_species=''Zelus transversus'' }}	Epidaus Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hemiptera Suborder: Heteroptera Family: Reduviidae Tribe: Harpactorini Genus: Epidaus Stål, 1859 Type species Zelus transversus
Manually wikilinked but not italicized type species {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Epidaus |authority=Stål, 1859 |type_species=[[Zelus transversus]] }}	Epidaus Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hemiptera Suborder: Heteroptera Family: Reduviidae Tribe: Harpactorini Genus: Epidaus Stål, 1859 Type species Zelus transversus
Manually wikilinked with pipe but not italicized type species {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Epidaus |authority=Stål, 1859 |type_species=[[Epidaus transversus|Zelus transversus]] }}	Epidaus Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hemiptera Suborder: Heteroptera Family: Reduviidae Tribe: Harpactorini Genus: Epidaus Stål, 1859 Type species Zelus transversus
Automatically italicized type genus {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Orchidaceae |type_genus=Orchis }}	Orchidaceae Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Clade: Tracheophytes Clade: Angiosperms Clade: Monocots Order: Asparagales Family: Orchidaceae Type genus Orchis
Type genus not automatically italicized because "<" found {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox |taxon=Orchidaceae |type_genus=Orchis {{small|L.}} }}	Orchidaceae Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Clade: Tracheophytes Clade: Angiosperms Clade: Monocots Order: Asparagales Family: Orchidaceae Type genus Orchis L.

@Shyamal: as per the last type species examples above, there is the issue of whether the type species should also automatically be wikilinked. This is often wrong if there's no pipe, at least for zoological names, because the type species has to be quoted as the original combination, so I don't think that automatic wikilinking is right. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: you look at more taxoboxes than most editors, I think; any views? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like a good fix to me. Shyamal (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The first complication that comes to mind is that the authority often is appended to |type_species= rather than being put under |type_species_authority=.

Epidaus Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hemiptera Suborder: Heteroptera Family: Reduviidae Tribe: Harpactorini Genus: Epidaus Stål, 1859 Type species Zelus transversus Burmeister, 1835

That is something that should be fixed eventually anyway, but it isn't anything I planned on tackling very soon, and it will require multiple regex searches that I'm not very sure how to construct in order to find cases. Making taxoboxes not italicize an appended authority I guess would require identifying a second "word" under |type_genus= or a third "word" under |type_species=, which may be preceded by a non alphanumeric character (e.g. <small> or a left parentheses (which also is indicative of a an error)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That should be fixed in the articles, not in the template. If there are too many articles with this problem, we should wait until they are fixed. Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

13,103 articles have |type_species= and 11,247 have |type_species_authority=. 518 have |type_genus= and 440 have |type_genus_authority=. So not quite 2000 authorities are missing, and I'd guess the majority are totally missing (not just appended to the type parameter). That's not as bad as I feared, but it still isn't going to be easy to find the cases that have authority appended. Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are 152 results with ref and type_species and another one result with type genus and ref. I've add [] {} ' to possible type species/genus wikitext markup. What other characters could be used? The might also be some using {{efn}}. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that's not what you want, is it? —  Jts1882 | talk  16:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well anything beyond the name of the type itself would also get italicized with Peter's code, so I guess I do want those with refs as well (although I think the ref is a lower priority than the full authority string).Plantdrew (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Try again. Here are 697 results using small for the authority. And three results with the {{small}} template. Then it gets difficult for authorities in normal size text. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882:, thanks. Periods, numerals and parentheses are characters that may appear in authority string, but would not occur in the name of a type. Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are 14 results of an authority (not using small) following a binomial name. I think it should have detected parenthetic authorities, although there are none picked up. Here are 27 results with type genus and small tag. I didn't get any results with the small template of a second word. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That's plenty to keep me busy for a bit, but wanted to note before I forget; authority strings might also include: comma, ampersand, "et al." and " and ". Plantdrew (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Further note to self. (per below); if word count is doable, that's the way to go. Otherwise, if doable, two links, two piped links, two capital letters (in genus and authority surname) are some other patterns. I'm working through the search for <small> and am encountering many gastropod genera. And there are a lot of gastropod genera still using manual taxoboxes, so small search should be repeated until gastropods are using automatic taxoboxes more. Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There are always surprises in what people put in parameters. Here the content of the authority isn't important as the searches are looking for something introducing the authority (the small tag or template) or for addition text following the taxon name, which should be one or two words for type genus and species, respectively. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew and Jts1882: I see you're well ahead of me – I realized yesterday during the day that there would be a problem with authorities and refs, and meant to add a comment here this morning (i.e. now), only to find you'd already been on to it.

@Jts1882: addition text following the taxon name, which should be one or two words for type genus and species, respectively – remember that particularly for zoological names there will often be a piped link, because the ICZN says give the original name.

The italicization code already checks for existing italic markup; it would be easy to add a check for the presence of small or ref tags, I think, and then not italicize, which should avoid many, although not all, incorrect italicizations. I'll look into it.

If it gets too complicated, then automatic italicization isn't worthwhile, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A quick modification to Module:TaxonItalics/sandbox just looks for "<" or ">" and skips italicization if present:

• Examples removed because Module:TaxonItalics/sandbox now restored to the original

(Technical note: I've noticed before that ref tags are pre-processed and so don't show up as such when they reach the Lua code, although they are not included as pre-save transforms here. @Jts1882: do you understand this or where it's documented?)

So it looks as though the sandbox versions of Module:Automatic taxobox and Module:TaxonItalics would fix most cases – unless there are yet more complications – although the change would slightly change the behavior of {{Taxon italics}}, and that would have to be investigated.

It is all worthwhile? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They are passed as strip markers (WP:UNIQ). You need something like mystring:find("UNIQ.-QINU").

I think that seems a good solution and will handle nearly everything. You can spend forever trying to code for every eventuality, although it is sometimes difficult to stop once started. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: ah, thanks! Now I see that page, I realize that I did once know about it. I've made a note now so hopefully will remember in future. Because of the CSS which gets invoked for references, italicization is over-ridden for them, so there's no need to get rid of ref tags. (I definitely agree about trying to code for every eventuality!)

My only issue now is that Module:TaxonItalics allows but removes any spans in the input. If I remember correctly, this is to deal with the use of {{hybrid}} in the input, since it adds a noitalic span around the ×, whereas TaxonItalics wants to handle all the italicization/de-italicization itself. But this means that the current sandbox version behaves like this:

• Example removed because Module:TaxonItalics/sandbox now restored to the original

The sandbox version could just look for "<small", but then it would produce different output for "<small>L.</small>" and "{{small|L.}}", which is undesirable.

Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly just replace <span class="noitalic">×</span> with × before the other checks (the italiced × is same as non-italicised ×). —  Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: the italicised × is same as non-italicised × – it depends on the font you use. For example, in most 'standard' fonts used in macOS, they differ, so it is important to pick out the ×. I now think the best approach is to test for "<" in the automatic taxobox code and only italicize if it's absent. As per your comments above, there could be more elaborate checks, but they probably aren't worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I've implemented this, and slightly revised the tests in the table above. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead and Jts1882:, I've gone through the searches Jts1882 provided and have moved almost all the type authorities to the appropriate parameter. There is a steady trickle of gastropod genera being converted to automatic taxoboxes, so ongoing checks will be necessary. There are a handful such as Bengalia where the type is noted as being a junior synonym. I haven't decided how to deal with those (I've dealt with type species being junior synonyms in the case of monotypic genera, by putting the type under |synonyms= with a parenthetical note that it is the type, but that won't work for polytypic genera). Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Updates to Ichnobox and Oobox

Please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 4#Updates to Ichnobox and Oobox templates. This involved the release of a new version of Module:Automated taxobox, which implements the italicization of 'bare' type genus and species names, as discussed above. Please report any errors you notice. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

More automatic italicization of page titles

There are two cases at present where {{Automatic taxobox}} fails to italicize page titles correctly, so some code is needed outside the taxobox, such as adding DISPLAY_TITLE. The cases are when the page title is:

1. an animal subgenus in the form "GENUS (SUBGENUS)", e.g. Varanus (Odatria), Camponotus (Dendromyrmex)
2. a plant taxon at a rank between genus and species with a connecting term, e.g. Aechmea subg. Chevaliera, Banksia ser. Banksia.

The problem in (1) is that normal italicization of the page title treats the parenthesized term as a disambiguator and so doesn't italicize it – which is correct in cases like Arachosia (spider) and Mus (subgenus), but wrong for Varanus (Odatria). I have code in the sandbox version of this template which forces italicization of the parenthesized term if |italic_title=taxon is present to show that the title is a taxon rather than a disambiguation. This is all that needs to be added.

The problem in (2) is that normal italicization of the page title italicizes the connecting term as well. I have code in the sandbox version which checks for a valid botanical connecting term and doesn't italicize it. Nothing extra needs to be added.

I've tested as many variants of page titles as I can find, and everything seems to work ok, so I propose to make the sandbox version live in a couple of days, unless anyone sees a problem. If you want to test the sandbox version – and please do – change "Automatic taxobox" to "Automatic taxobox/sandbox" in a page and preview (but don't save of course). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A switch like |italic_title=taxon might be useful for some other cases where a parenthetical term isn't a disambiguator (e.g. books, films, and albums with parenthetical subtitles). Although it looks like {{Infobox album}} already has a way to handle that (see e.g. Tears Roll Down (Greatest Hits 82–92)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting point, although titles of works are completely italicized, including the parentheses, which is easier to handle than e.g. Mus (Mus) versus Mus (subgenus).

On a different point, I'm sure there are disambiguated non-italicized scientific names of organisms, but right now I can't find/remember any; such a case should be tested. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Found one: Ponerinae (plant). Sandbox version works ok with this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox version released

I've now made the sandbox version of Module:Automated taxobox live. The changes are noted above. Please report any errors here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I've checked all the pages with titles that have botanical connecting terms or parenthesised animal subgenera. If you notice any, please update them as per the instructions now at Template:Automatic taxobox/doc#Italic title. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Types for higher taxa

I'm working on a rewrite of a fungal order. I noticed that there is no parameter for "type_family"; is this an oversight or is it discouraged to put the type information for taxa at levels higher than family? Also, in this particular instance, the authors of the order used a genus as the type, but I guess that the "type_genus" parameter only works when when the parent is a family? Esculenta (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there has ever been a |type_family= parameter or a discussion on whether to create one. I can't remember ever seeing a type family used. I tested |type_genus=''[[Lecanora]]'' at Lecanorales and it seems to work. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) The nomenclatural codes don't govern ranks above family very strictly.

ICZN:

1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, 28 and 32.5.2.5 also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group.

None of the ICZN articles that regulate ranks above the family group have anything to do with typification or authorship.

ICNafp:

10.10. The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being formed from generic names (see Art. 16.1(a)), the type of which is the same as that of the generic name.

Basically, types are not required, but a genus can be considered the type of an order that is based on that genus name. Type families are not a thing. Wikipedia taxoboxes for orders are capable of displaying |type_genus=.

I don't think type genus is very useful to list in family articles, since it is usually obvious from the name of the family what the type genus is, and anybody who cares about type genera is likely to realize that (there are some exception, i.e. when a type genus is regarded as a synonym). Listing authorities above families can also be problematic as it gets away from what the codes regulate, and it can be open to multiple interpretations as to who deserves authority credit (e.g. Sipuncula has traditionally been considered a phylum but probably is a subgroup of phylum Annelida; if it isn't a phylum should the person who described it as a phylum be credited, or the person who put it at it's current rank?). Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both for your helpful replies. Learned something new. Esculenta (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Link "Phylum", "Clade", etc?

Many (most?) readers will encounter species taxoboxes but many fewer will know the definition of Phylum, Clade, etc. It would likely be helpful to many to link those terms. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbiotic relationships

Hi All,

I was converting some taxoboxes to be speciesboxes, and met an interesting question with Lobaria_pulmonaria.

It's a lichen, and it is composed of three species, living symbiotically: a fungus, an algae and a cyanobacterium. In the wikipedia entry, there was a single taxobox (which I converted to a single speciesbox), but I couldn't help wondering "shouldn't this be three speciesboxes?" One for each of the fungus, the algae and the cyanobacterium. I played with that, by adding another appropriate species box and looking at the preview:

Automatic taxobox/Archive 14
Scientific classification
Clade:	Viridiplantae
Division:	Chlorophyta
Class:	Trebouxiophyceae
Order:	Trebouxiales
Family:	Trebouxiaceae
Genus:	Dictyochloropsis
Species:	D. reticulata
Binomial name
Dictyochloropsis reticulata (Tschermak-Woess) Tschermak-Woess

and it looked OK: there were two taxonomy boxes. Note: I didn't save! Just out of caution ("what will this break??").

So: here are questions:

• Is it legitimate and supported for a wikipedia page to have more than one taxonomy box?
• What will it break?
• If not, should we consider supporting it? For pages where genuinely multiple taxa are being described?
• Should we consider a new template for symbiotes? ("symbiotebox", or whatever)

Ben morphett (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sure we all know about Symbiogenesis. Shyamal (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unused taxonomy templates

A recent report has uncovered a list of over 3,000 taxonomy templates without transclusions. Templates without transclusions are typically deleted or redirected, but I know that this template system is complex, and there may be some reason for these templates to be unused. A few of them are obviously errors, but it would be helpful if someone with more knowledge of the taxonomy template system could take a look at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates (starting at line 4515) and provide some feedback. Many of them may be ready to be tagged with Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, but I will let someone with more knowledge make that determination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:, I look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/14 from time to time and have (very slowly) chipping away at the taxonomy templates there (placing them in the unnecessary taxonomy template category). Page 14 of the unused template report is all redirects. That report apparently doesn't find any unused non-redirect taxonomy templates. Any idea why your report found so many unused taxonomy templates and the other report doesn't?

Is it possible to filter the unused taxonomy templates by the status of their links (red-link or redirect)? Or could the creator/creation date be shown in the table (there were some bots ca. 2011/2012 that created taxonomy templates that should be in use eventually). If either of these are possible, it would help sort through the templates. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

See this discussion for the process that created this new list. Technically, "a list of non-redirect pages in the template namespace with only one transclusion and it's a self-transclusion". Templates with any transclusions at all do not currently show up on the unused templates report. If we can get this list integrated into the unused templates report (which makes sense to me, since the only transclusion is in the template itself, so there aren't really any transclusions), the creation date and most-recent-edit date will be displayed there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Without some of the information Plantdrew mentioned above, it's simply too onerous to go through and decide whether these taxonomy templates will be useful in future. Here's just one example I noticed: Template:Taxonomy/Aglaogonia. The article Aglaogonia has a manual taxobox right now, so when it's converted to an automated one (which is slowly happening all over the tree of life), the taxonomy template will be used. Old (say 5+ years with no edits?) unused templates with the target taxon as a red link could probably be removed – but even in that case, there may be articles on lower-ranked taxa with manual taxoboxes that would use the currently unused taxonomy template when converted.

If there's really a compelling reason to remove currently unused taxonomy templates, I would reluctantly accept a "time since edited" criterion. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that for some of them, making use of them is as simple as replacing taxobox with speciesbox, unless I am misunderstanding the documentation. The trick is knowing which templates are usable and repeating that simple edit a couple thousand times. Can one of you provide a "dummies' guide" to knowing which ones are usable, i.e. templates where a certain kind of article exists?

@Jonesey95: or some other kind of automated taxobox – see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/which. Perhaps 9 times out of 10 converting a manual taxobox to an automated one is straightforward, but there are a nontrivial proportion of more complicated cases that require some understanding of the system as well as the taxonomy of the group. That's why it has been a "slow and steady task", of which Plantdrew is one of the experts. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes really started to be used en masse in early 2017. There were a little over 300,000 articles with manual taxoboxes in April 2017, and there are now 135,000; it may take another 4-5 years before all (or almosts) articles are using automatic taxoboxes instead of manual. Unused but useful taxonomy templates could be put into use more quickly. However, I prefer to verify that the classification is up-to-date while implementing automatic taxoboxes. I can do that most efficiently when verifying against a small number of sources, usually working systematically through a particular family. As the unused but useful taxonomy templates are all over the tree of life, many different sources would need to be consulted. Quickly putting all unused but useful taxonomy templates into use would likely come at the expense of verification and quality control. Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If you list the information you want about each template, I may be able to request a query that shows that information. It should be relatively easy to get creator, first edit date, and most recent edit date. I don't know that it will be easy to separate the templates that contain red links, but that might be possible. I can ask. Is there any other information you want about these templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: creator and most recent edit would be really helpful. There are some old bots, for example, whose creations are unlikely to be useful now. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I came across a bunch of useful taxonomy templates for moths created by William Avery in 2017 (contributions here. I've done same in the past (creating a batch of templates for child taxa) and don't always finish the conversions. I converted a couple of those moth taxoboxes to use the automated system and will try and do a few more tomorrow.

Not sure how to automate the selection. Perhaps a white list of creators who generally know what they are doing. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking on it further, @Jonesey95:, could you do a table of unused taxonomy templates with the value in |link= given as a link? There's no reason you need to filter out red-links/redirects. I do that easily visually if all the links are shown in a single place. Plantdrew (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is something like this list useful? It has too many template calls to finish rendering, but I can split it up if it is helpful for a first pass. I can't get creators or dates myself without requesting a query, AFAIK. You'll need to have the script that turns redirects green for the page to be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that helps (I have the script for green redirects). Plantdrew (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Article creation link appears to generate an incorrect page

When I visit Template:Taxonomy/Celosieae, which has no associated article, I see "Wikipedia does not yet have an article about Celosieae. You can help by creating it." The last two words, "creating it", are linked. As a reader, I expect the link to go to an article creation page like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Celosieae but instead it goes to a https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Template:taxonomy/Celosieae which is a link that wants me to create a taxonomy template.

Is this working as designed? If so, what am I misunderstanding? I poked around the transcluded templates on that page but was not able to easily find where this text is generated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The message is generated at Template:Taxonomy_key. That does look like it's not what is intended. The taxonomy template already exists so there is no need to create it. It may not have been noticed as someone landing on the page is unlikely be looking to create a missing mainspace article. Editing the link is the more likely action. I'll have a look tomorrow if no one else jumps in. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think just removing the message, as Jonesey95 has done temporarily, is all that is needed: the red link to the article is prominent and following it will start its creation. (I've probably looked at a thousand or more taxonomy templates, but never noticed this error!) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case there is no point saying that Wikipedia has no article on this taxon, as that is a prelude to doing something about it. So either remove that too or follow it with a message giving two options or one being more explicit about the link, e.g. something like:

• "You can edit the target taxon link or create a new Wikipedia article." (linking italicised terms).
• "It's possible the relevant article has a disambiguated title which can linked to by edited by the target taxon link'."

But having also looked at hundreds of templates and never noticing the message, it doesn't strike me as that useful. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Please join the discussion at Template talk:Edit taxonomy § Pencil icon, 2022 on a proposal to change the "edit taxonomy" icon from the current to . Peter coxhead (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Orchid abbreviations

I'd like to discuss whether we could add the official orchid abbreviations to the genera taxobox of orchids. They are official (maintained by the RHS), unique, and widely used. I'm thinking of just showing the abbreviation after the genus name in parentheses, but it could also be its own line. Many orchid genus articles mention it in the lead, and it would be nice to have a systematic place to put it. Here is a link to the official list:

https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/pdfs/plant-registration-forms/orchid-name-abbreviations-list.pdf

EDIT: Here's an example of an orchid genus page which has the abbreviation in the lead: Leptotes (plant)

–Jérôme (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Chordata

There is an [edit request] that may interest editors. Feel free to issue an opinion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Controversial higher taxonomy

I'm looking to start a series of articles on fossil Odonate genera from the Okanagan Highlands, but there is a problem. When described in 2021 the genera were placed into a newly defined suborder "Cephalozygoptera", based on head morphology detail. The erection of the suborder was quickly questioned by another paleoentomologist, who treated the name as a jr synonym of Zygoptera. There was a short series of papers from both groups advocating their positions, and now the two authors are using their preferred taxonomies, and noone else has waded in.

Is there a way to format for controversal higher taxonomy in the automatic taxoboxes?--Kevmin § 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Kevmin § 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Odonata Central doesn't have anything to say about it (their website is down at the moment)? If displaying "Zygoptera (?)" seem OK to you, you could follow the procedure here. Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately Odonata Central does not encompass fossil taxa at all, and as such does not take positions on the complex higher phylogeny that the fossil record entails. As it stands, we have to suborders with equal use, and no databases of reliable nature that cover the taxa.--Kevmin § 18:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I found this to be a major problem with prehistoric taxa of disputed/unresolved affiliation. The template, as is, is simply far too rigorous for taxonomy (which is necessarily flexible); there needs to be some way to accomodate for taxonomic uncertainty. Many articles (especially Mesozoic amniotes, for which there are abundant phylogenetic analyses but much disagreement still) at present give demonstrably false information. It is something of a let-down to read through one of our excellent dinosaur articles and only way down realize that the taxobox is, once again, giving misinformation (and for professional researchers who use Wikipedia as a quick-reference/literature index - i.e. basically everyone these days -, it is positively annoying.) Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If displaying "(?)" after a taxon name isn't sufficient, then use a manual taxobox (i.e. {{Taxobox}}) where you can enter text more freely. The automated taxobox system is meant for settled taxonomic hierarchies. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)