Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 5

Italics and using |taxon= for monotypic genera

Here is an example [1]. I have to add | name = ''Eotyrannus'' and {{Italic title}} in order to get the italics right. It kind of has that "I'm doing it wrong" feel. Is there a better way to do this? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because of the dagger at the genus level. If I recall, the taxobox checks if the article title matches either the genus or binomial and then italicizes. Because the dagger is present, the parameters don't match and it won't automatically italicize. I suppose we could have it overlook the dagger, just like it does when there are disambiguators in the title like (genus). I'm not sure how to do that, though, so we'd have to see if one of the template gurus can do it. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the name parameter of the {{taxobox}} is getting parsed before the genus parameter gets filled in. I'll take a look. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem lies in this line of {{automatic taxobox}}:

| name = {{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{taxobox name|{{taxobox/italics|{{{taxon|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

but I don't have time tonight to look at it. Martin, feel free to work on this one. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is discussed below at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Feedback. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referential integrity

As I learn of new controversial taxa, the most recent of which I learned about was Sauria, which was replaced by Lacertilia and then by Squamata, it's quite difficult to clean up daughter taxon templates. Perhaps there is a way to search for, say, all pages containing parent=Lacertilia? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually I'll have to code a toolserver page for this purpose.

Meanwhile, you could replace Template:Taxonomy/Lacertilia with

#REDIRECT[[Template:Taxonomy/Squamata]] 
<includeonly>[[Category:Pages linking to Lacertilia]]</includeonly>

Then they'd all display the correct taxon immediately, and (I think) they should eventually show up in a category that you can check manually (they'll only appear in the category when the host page is edited, though). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's thinking outside the box. :) Will do right now! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to "what links here" then go to the first article, figure out which taxa is the immediate child of the one you are interested in, point that to the new parent, then repeat. For pathological cases you have to traverse up a long list of non-primary taxa each time, but this goes fast. The toolserver thing would be nice for other reasons anyway, though, and will make this even faster. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now copying/pasting the following code, replacing the two pointers to the new taxon:

<noinclude>{{tdeprecated|{{PAGENAME}}|Taxonomy/Squamata|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}</noinclude>
<includeonly>#REDIRECT[[Template:Taxonomy/Squamata]] [[Category:Pages linking to deprecated {{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Deprecated taxon templates]]</noinclude>

This puts all the deprecated taxon templates into a category together, where maintenance will be slightly easier if we can keep track of them all. I was hoping I could implement something more like {{dtaxon|Squamata}}, where it would transclude the code I mentioned above, but I can't seem to <includeonly> an <includeonly> or a <noinclude>. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To include an includeonly, use the format

<includeonly>Blah blah blah <inclu<includeonly></includeonly>deonly></includeonly>Text to be included</inclu<includeonly></includeonly>deonly></includeonly>Blah blah

. Hope that makes sense? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the point of this just to prevent people from using template:Taxonomy/Sauria? If someone does use it, then this breaks them, right? ErikHaugen (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I attempted exactly that before giving up-- it wasn't working for me (although it's quite possible I had a typo somewhere).

Erik, one of the beautiful things about the automatic taxobox is it's forcing people to agree on classification (though many would argue that's bad). The reason Sauria and Lacertilia are bad choices is because these taxa are paraphyletic-- that is, they include part of a daughter taxon-- they're like step-parent taxa, in a way. Squamata is preferred because it's monophyletic-- meaning it contains all members of all its daughter taxa-- making it highly ideal for a database such as the one this template relies upon. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you wrt. monophyly; I'm just wondering why you don't just delete Template:Taxonomy/Sauria altogether? Was the idea to leave it there until all its daughters were re-parented? Or is it just there to make sure nobody unwittingly re-adds it? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were recreated specifically for hunting down daughter taxa. At this point, the only purpose they serve is to point to deprecated taxon templates, since the page notice can handle informing folks which updated template to use. Shall I delete them again? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem useful to have them flagged like that so people know not to use them and use the other ones instead. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of toolserver, there's nothing there beyond what you could get with the API that would be useful other than hosting, is there? ErikHaugen (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm applying for toolserver permissions to create something to this effect. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I have tried to use the trial site for the species under Velutina. Here is some feedback:

The site defaults to creating the taxon as X. species name. I have to change it to full name, Velutina insculpta when creating the Taxonomy template. Please default species taxon to the full name.
It defaults to whatever is in the existing taxobox, but creates the page at the full taxon name (where it can work it out). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The taxobox had "V. <species". In these cases (if the species name does not match the page title), it would be best for the taxobot site to default the page name. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The submit button stays grey even after the verified checkbox is checked. It allows me to click it though.
Are you using an up-to-date browser (that supports HTML5)? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am using IE 8.0. I am not sure if it fully supports HTML5. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The genus authority is not displaying on the Velutina page.

Overall it is a useful tool. I do prefer using the tool over creating the templates manually. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rkitko has fixed the genus authority issue. Many articles still link to the genus_authority parameter. Can the parameter be added to this template? — Ganeshk (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a conversion script that'll help users to convert existing taxoboxes to the new template. (I've written the script but haven't worked out how to let editors apply its results.) "Genus_authority" might mean "authority" or "parent_authority", so we can't just pass the parameter and assume that it means a single thing. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When automating the taxobox, use the following procedure:

Add "automatic" before "taxobox", and make sure the T is lowercase.
Remove all taxon parameters. If the taxon the article is about is not the title of the page, change it to say "taxon = " instead of whatever taxon it is. If the taxon is monotypic, you will need to set taxon equal to the species (preferred by most zoology editors) or else use the subdivision parameter (preferred by the plant editors and several paleozoology editors). When setting taxon equal to the subtaxon.
Change the authority to read simply "authority =" instead of "species_authority =". If an authority is needed for the parent taxon, use "parent_authority =", and "grandparent_authority =" for the grandparent taxon's authority.
Check to see that the taxobox title and page title are correct and show the correct italicization. Due to a glitch, you may need to use {{italictitle}} as well as a formatted taxobox title for certain monotypic genera.

Hope this guide helps... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, thanks for the guide. I will follow these instructions next time. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of the glitch? It might be fixable. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Eotyrannus. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...looks like that page has been updated. Anyway, pop this code into your Sandbox and you'll see:

{{italictitle}}{{Automatic taxobox | fossil_range = [[Early Cretaceous]], {{fossilrange|130}} | image = Eotyrannus model.JPG | image width = 200 pixels | image_caption = Model | name = ''Eotyrannus'' | taxon = Eotyrannus lengi | display_taxa = 3 | parent_authority = (Hutt ''et al.'', 2001) | binomial = ''Eotyrannus Lengi'' | binomial_authority = (Hutt ''et al.'', 2001) }}

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you are referring to a taxobox not italicizing the page title when a name is specified using |name='italics'. The new parameter |italic_name= should do the job in such cases. Have I understood you correctly? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I noticed your edit and I've begun incorporating that in monotypic genera's taxoboxes. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing wrong: Acrophyseter. The name doesn't show up in the taxobox. Neither does the image, but I suspect that is a separate problem. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird.... I do see the image, but the name is definitely not there. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title shows up when the italic parameter is removed. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is working now; thanks mr. smith. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

taxon parameter

So, I was thinking... Shouldn't we always encourage the use of taxon=, even if the title of the article is the name of the taxon? I get the alternative argument: why put it in if it's unnecessary? I suppose I'd argue it's more intuitive to the uninitiated for the automatic taxobox to state which taxon it's for. But more to the point, when an article is moved from a scientific name to a common name, the taxobox would break if taxon= wasn't specified, correct? A common action like that shouldn't break the taxobox. What do you think? Rkitko ^(talk) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are arguments for and against including blank parameters; you'd probably get the same or similar arguments on this issue. I prefer not including a parameter unless it's needed-- it saves space, makes the template code more compact, makes it easier to find the top of the article, and reduces the page's size, improving download time. However, including the parameter prepares the page in case of a page move. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links when taxobox is on another page

For example, Hawaiian_lobelioids – what's the best way to get the taxobox to link to Lobelioideae? Or is this just wrong? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

|taxon=Lobelioideae ? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a monophyletic daughter clade of Lobelioideae. I'd use the following taxobox:

{{Automatic taxobox

|image = Clermontia_pallida.jpg

|image_caption = ''Clermontia pallida''

|subdivision_ranks = [[Genus|Genera]]

|subdivision = ''Brighamia'' 

''Clermontia'' 

''Cyanea'' 

''Delissea'' 

''Lobelia'' 

''Trematolobelia''

|}}

and for the template {{Taxonomy/Hawaiian lobelioids}}, add this code:

{{taxonomic unit|{{{1}}}

|rank=clade

|link=Hawaiian lobelioids

|parent=Lobelioideae

}}

Hope that makes sense. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bob, that does make sense and might be the way to go. I guess the genera templates below it would have to have |display_taxa=0 to avoid "Hawaiian lobelioids" showing up in those taxoboxes. Just out of curiosity, though, if I didn't want to make a separate taxonomy/ template, then is it possible to get the link to show up? ie, if I have |taxon=Lobelioideae then is there a way to get Lobelioideae to be linkified in the taxobox? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like my dad, I'm really tempted to say it wouldn't matter since it is probably never applicable. If you really do need it to do that, I think the old {{taxobox}} may be your only option. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, common practice is to not include a taxobox on an article about multiple taxa. It doesn't sound to me like the article topic is a named taxon under Lobelioideae; it may be monophyletic daughter clade, but it doesn't appear to have a name. If it did, a taxobox would be fine. Otherwise, nix the taxobox. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

section header background colors for animals

For animals at least, it seems the section headers – ie, binomial/synonyms – have a white background instead of that beige color. I think this just started happening today. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example? The one I'm looking at currently has a beige background. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophyseter – or any animal with a "binomial name" section or a "synonyms" section. The part where is says "Binomial name" has a white background instead of beige like it would if we used Template:Taxobox. Plant taxoboxen appear ok – the headings have green backgrounds. I presume this has to do with /core refactoring but I'm just guessing. ErikHaugen (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting-- I could have sworn I fixed that problem a few weeks ago. The problem had been that the color code for one part of the taxobox was not the same as the other parts. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this now please (with Template:Automatic taxobox/sandbox)? Thanks! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microrder

Shall we add support for the microrder? If so, I've got one that will be needing set to that rank once the change is made: {{Taxonomy/Mystroptera}}. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can specify any rank you like. I notice that you specified some ranked taxa (such as legions) as unranked, then placed "legion" in their display text. I've modified this so that legion is specified as a rank. (See here) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, neat! I tested it out here and it worked. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating subgenus taxonomy/ templates

Can we standardize on how subgenus articles are disambiguated? I created Template:Taxonomy/Mus (Mus), because it shows up that way on wikispecies and it is written that way normally. But then I noticed Template:Taxonomy/Xenophora (subgenus). I realize a lot of times the Wikipedia article titles are disambiguated as Mus (subgenus). I'm trying to discuss that particular issue here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Disambiguating_subgenus_articles. Is it ok for us to reach a different conclusion for taxonomy templates vs. article titles? It maybe doesn't matter too much, because this decision only affects the title of the template, as far as I can tell; it isn't visible on any article. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever is most likely to be the immediate parent of an arbitrary descendant taxon ought to not have the parameter. If it's a subgenus, chances are the genus is the best one to leave the parameter off of, and append it to the subgenus. If someone really wants the subgenus badly enough, they can find it or ask. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Considering the Mus (Mus) example, did I name Template:Taxonomy/Mus (Mus) correctly? What about Template:Taxonomy/Xenophora (subgenus)? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please update Template:Automatic_taxobox/Conventions when you have resolved this matter. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think per WP:PRECISION it should be Template:Taxonomy/Mus (Mus) and Mus (Mus): "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead (of adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses)." ErikHaugen (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In botany there are clear rules on how to style these things. So instead of having an article on the section Coleostylis or even Coleostylis (Levenhookia), we have Levenhookia sect. Coleostylis and thus Template:Taxonomy/Levenhookia sect. Coleostylis. Seemed easier and clearer to me than parenthesis. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rkitko, this is an interesting alternative that I hadn't mentioned – it's essentially what is done on wikispecies – that is, even when there is no ambiguity, you would write the "long" version, eg: Template:Taxonomy/Mus (Coelomys). a-la: http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mus_(Coelomys) This is essentially what we do for species, anyway – the titles of the taxonomy templates are generally the full binomial. Should we do this for subgenera also? I'll update the Template:Automatic_taxobox/Conventions page if we're agreeable. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In zoology, subgenera and subspecies should be written as Genus (Subgenus) and Genus species subspecies. I can't think of any instances where both a subgenus and a subspecies are used, but I'd expect the same rule to be used there as well. However, if it should happen there are two taxa with the same name that aren't genera/subgenera or the like, such as a phylum and kingdom (I had this problem with Bacteria recently, but I see someone's resolved the taxonomy paradox since then), then the one less likely to serve as a parent to a new taxon would take the parameter. So yes, please use {{Taxonomy/Mus (Mus)}}. Thanks for asking! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganized Template:Automatic_taxobox/Conventions; please take a look, and we should probably move this discussion there if there is more to discuss. ErikHaugen (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that Erik; you've done a really good job there! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I may have made some somewhat bold prescriptions; hopefully things are in a new enough state that this was ok to do. But if people can check the content that would be great. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms

I just added the autotaxobox to Lobatus gigas. I noticed that the taxobox stills looks crowded. Can the synonyms to be moved into the Taxonomy template too? — Ganeshk (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is compelling to store the edges of the taxonomy graph separately from the articles about the taxa because it avoids data duplication. But with synonyms, you can't really do this, so I'm not sure how it would help. It's a lot of clutter, sure, but it has to go somewhere. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you want to avoid the clutter in the article text, you could create a special template at Template:Synonyms/taxon with the synonym list. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have created Template:Synonyms/Lobatus gigas. I added a text {{Synonyms/Lobatus gigas}} to the synonym parameter on Lobatus gigas. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like this... While most synonyms are static, some opinions do change. I really don't think we should be making the synonym field that much harder to edit. If you think the synonym list is too large for the taxobox, you can move it to its own article section, but it shouldn't be hidden in a template. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the edit button on the synonym box? Will that not suffice? — Ganeshk (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the article up and transcluding just for the sake of making the raw wikitext shorter doesn't seem terribly useful, is there something else going on here? Are you going to do something with the Synonyms/ templates? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]