Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Taxobox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Adjust to Mediawiki change for accessibility support

{{editprotected}} This is following up on the edit installed in #Accessibility support above. I noticed a related problem with alt text when reviewing the Featured Article candidate Kerry slug, which uses {{Taxobox}}.

A recent change to the Mediawiki software means that purely decorative images need to be marked with "|link=|alt=" instead of just "|link=" if we want these images to be skipped by screen readers used by blind readers of Wikipedia. This behavior is documented in WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. {{Taxobox}} has several such images, which need to be marked in this way. I've made the obvious change to the sandbox and tested it. Please install the sandbox change to the template. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Code overhaul

{{Taxobox}}'s code is currently pretty archaic. I've spent some time modernising it, which makes it easier to follow and maintain and starts bringing it in line with modern {{infobox}} defaults. The result is in the current sandbox, and some comparisons are available on the test cases page. Main changes:

The conservation status code has been moved to a sub-template (currently at {{taxobox/sandbox/species}}).
The table-within-a-table has been popped out, and the whole infobox uses one table element now.
Almost all row declarations are now conditional, which ensures that deployed infoboxes won't have rogue blank rows. This also significantly improves the readability of the code.

I'd like to work on this further, ideally moving the template further in line with modern {{infobox}} presentation. However, that would significantly impact the metrics of the template, so I've held off for now. Thoughts on the current work? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

~~The textual indication of conservation status is in pre mode - a spurious leading space perhaps?~~ Also the captions are larger than before. I have no objection to that but it would be good if we could separate out implementation tweaks from rendering tweaks: it would be a shame if a major code cleanup was rejected because some minor rendering changes were viewed as regressions. Hesperian 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through the rest, and it does indeed seem to me to be a good solid cleanup. I can't see any problems other than what I pointed out above.

(But for the life of me I can't figure out why those valigns are not needed. I tested with some very long names, fully expecting ugly vertical centering to manifest itself when the lines wrap, but to my surprise it worked just fine.) Hesperian 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the pre mode problem.[1] Hesperian 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd prefer to leave the caption code for now: IMO the old text was illegible, and as it doesn't obviously cause big layout fallout I think it's palatable even if others don't want to see big layout changes for now. Arguably the padding changes for the classification values are more noticeable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Let's give it 24 hours to see if anyone else comments or objects, and then send it live. Hesperian 00:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it ended up being a week instead of 24 hours. Now live. Hesperian 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Italic title problem

It seems the code overhaul broke the italic title trick. COuld somebody look into it ASAP? Circeus (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. I don't quite see what exactly in the update caused the italic title to break, though, so perhaps it was something else. Might it be a software or CSS change instead? Ucucha 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did the code overhaul also break the trinomial name parameter, e.g. the now multiple lines at Banksia conferta subsp. conferta? --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Fixed in sandbox, waiting for editprotected to resolve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if we're just waiting for the servers to update but I just found a strange bug related to this. I changed the species section of the template from Haematococcus pluvialis to H. pluvialis in this edit. Before that the title was italicised but changing the species name broke it. Smartse (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that happened because the parameter |species= no longer has content "''{{PAGENAME}}''", so that {{Taxobox name}} no longer produces the italic title. I'm not sure what to do about it, though, and I still don't see what in the recent {{Taxobox}} edit caused these problems. Ucucha 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. It was the space after {{{binomial}}} introduced here.

Please delete the whitespace after {{{binomial}}} in the {{{name}}} part (line four of the code), as in this edit. This fixes the italic title problem. [2] Ucucha 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The other edits I did at the sandbox don't need to be introduced here (they resulted simply from me pasting the text of the main template into the sandbox), it's only about the first space I deleted right at the top of the code. Ucucha 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch.

Done. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ucucha 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Extinct genus

BUG REPORT: How to keep a year of extinction of the genus Gyrotoma in the taxobox and not to add the article into Category:Extinct species? (It is allready categorized in Category:Extinct gastropods). --Snek01 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement that it was a bad idea to make the Taxobox autocategorise like this, for this very reason: it holds back sharper categorisation. However rather than pulling out autocategorisation all at once, we have been doing it piecemeal, as problems arise.

Leave this with me if you want. Some time this week I'll do an AWB run, explicitly adding "[[Category:Extinct species]]" to everything in Category:Extinct species. It will then be safe for us to remove this autocategorisation from the taxobox, and you will be free to sharpen the category. Sound okay?

Hesperian 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let us to know then. --Snek01 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.[3] Changes to very high-use templates do not propagate through Wikipedia instantaneously; it may take a little while before you can see it everywhere. I have purged the change into Gyrotoma for you, however. Hesperian 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox appearance changes

What happened? I'm seeing all this extra white space around the conservation status line, and a gap between the "Synonyms" bar and the first entry below it, and the range map caption text size shouldn't be the same as that of the prose. -- Yzx (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The code overhaul discussed in section #Code overhaul above was sent live today. Do you want it reverted? Can you give us some examples of unattractive taxoboxes? Hesperian 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Yzx was referring to great white shark, where {{{status_ref}}} shows up in text. Or lemon shark, where there is extra space between the synonym header and the first synonym. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll use Longfin mako shark as an example (it's the same really across most species articles): there's white space above and below the word "Vulnerable" that wasn't there before, there is another white space between "Synonyms" and "Isurus alatus" (which looks odd because there isn't one between "Scientific classification" and "Kingdom: Animalia", or between "Binomial name" and "Isurus paucus"), and the caption for the range map has a regular text size (which I object to because image caption text sizes should be uniform across the entire article, i.e. smaller than the prose). I'd also like to see the taxonomic rankings get indented again, because otherwise I think there's too much space between where, say, the word "kingdom" ends and the word "Animalia" begins. I'd like to see the code, if not reverted, then modified to more closely resemble what the taxobox looked like before. -- Yzx (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, these are all just metrics issues, right? There are no actual bugs? It's certainly easy enough to massage the metrics to resemble the previous layout, but I'd like to confirm that we're just talking aesthetics here first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, my issues with the new code are aesthetic. -- Yzx (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. In that case I'd really rather we had a wider discussion about what the ideal presentation should be; the new code is much easier to modify, so it's not difficult to work on it piece by piece until we have it perfect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Need to sync with the sandbox for the {{{status_ref}}} bug though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: apparently the extraneous white space around conservation status only shows up in Firefox, not Internet Explorer, and not at all if it's "Data Deficient". -- Yzx (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what the problem is, I think. I don't think it is Firefox v IE; let me guess, you were logged in on one, and logged out on the other.

Great White Shark explicitly sets the image size to 250px, instead of honouring default thumb size preferences. In my view it shouldn't: the image size parameter should be removed. The conservation status image, on the other hand, honours default thumb size preferences, which, in your case, is probably around 240px. When you view the page in Internet Explorer, where you are logged in, you get photo and status images at 250px and 240px, so there is very little whitespace. When you view the page in Firefox, where you are logged out, you get photo and status images at 250px and 180px, so that there is a lot of whitespace around the status image.

It is my understanding that this situation has not changed with the recent update; it has been the case since February 2008; see Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 11#Status images. Hesperian 05:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the white space above and below where it says "Vulnerable" (for example), which only appeared when the code changed, regardless of whether I'm logged in. I'm 100% sure of this. -- Yzx (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I mustn't have been seeing what you were seeing because of my own logged-in-logged-out differences. I'll have another look.Hesperian 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I think I figured it out. It's the space in the code between the conservation system image and the text, which manifests as extra white spaces in Firefox for some reason. I'd like to get rid of it? -- Yzx (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Based by your observation that the problem does not occur in the Data Deficient case, this should have fixed it. Hesperian 06:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I purged Great White Shark, and it has made a huge difference. Hesperian 06:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image caption text size

I'd like to address the changes in the caption text size for the images and the range maps; I strongly believe that they should returned to the size that they were before, i.e. smaller than article prose and the same as other image caption text on Wikipedia. To have a different text size between the infobox image captions and the rest of the image captions in the same article looks completely unprofessional. -- Yzx (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You make a reasonable case, at the very least for an "injunction" against such an undiscussed change. I've restored the smaller font for now. Let's wait and see what Chris says. Hesperian 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with captions to be set at font-size: small, but not at font-size: smaller. That's actually smaller than the image captions on thumbnails. I've updated the sandbox to demonstrate; this should be pushed out unless there's some real need to use very small text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

done. Hesperian 11:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please sync this with the sandbox (rather than making the changes manually); I made a correction to ensure that the font size is correct. In addition, the deployed code still refers to {{taxobox/sandbox/species}}, which isn't right. I've left an editprotected on that sub-template to get it moved out of sandboxspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Argh. Needs to be {{taxobox/species}} and not just {{/species}}. Sorry! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So I discovered. Fixed now. Never mind. Hesperian 12:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Text margin consistency

Can the code be tweaked to make all the sections with text in them have consistent margins? At the moment the text under "scientific classification" is significantly closer to the edges than the text under "species" or "synonyms". -- Yzx (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's being caused by an explicit padding: 0.5em declaration before the latter two sections. Looks like a throwback to the old code, where it was required to fake consistency with the inner table. I've removed it in the sandbox; have a look and see if that's okay for you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks better; is there a way to increase only the margins on the sides? I think it would be good for the text to be interior of the colored bars of each section header. -- Yzx (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this template to arbitrarily differ in that respect from the majority of the encyclopedia's infoboxes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. The current sandbox looks fine. The live version should be updated. -- Yzx (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More gremlins

Viewed on IE, the taxoboxes of Grevillea humifusa and Grevillea involucrata have jumbled up conservation status sections and a broad border of white on the right-hand side. Anyone know how to fix this? Melburnian (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I can guess what's going on here; hang on a sec.... Hesperian 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. It was a stray carriage return.[4] Hesperian 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That did the trick, thanks. Melburnian (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Colors

As far as I know the "color" parameter is now redundant as the template is coloured according to the kingdom. However I keep on finding a lot of articles that still contain it and removing it screws up the template e.g. this page version. Can someone explain how the color parameter can be removed without breaking the template? Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The template recognizes what color it has to use by checking the |regnum= parameter, and it accepts only a limited set of values. Your article gave |regnum=[[Bacterium|Bacteria]], which didn't work. I changed it to |regnum=[[Bacteria]], which does work.

This portion of template functionality is carried out by {{Taxobox colour}} (no need to go American there ;-) ). As you can see, it only accepts just "[[bacteria]]" as a value (capitalization is ignored). If needed, "bacteria" can be added there. Ucucha 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Smartse (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Diversity link

In 2007 Sarefo suggested the following:

i think it's inconsistent to link to a species list via the "Diversity" line, mainly because the other headings ("Scientific classification", "Type species") link to a general article about the subject. i would propose to really link to an article about diversity, and instead link to the species list from the line below, which mentions the number of species/genera etc. other than that, the taxobox is the best thing since computers started to have a monitor ;) --Sarefo 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the Diversity section for the first time on Mosquito and my first thoughts were identical to Sarefo's above (even down to the bit about the taxobox being the best thing since monitors!). I second the propsal to have the links changed so that, using Mosquito as an example, "41 genera", rather than "Diversity", is hyperlinked to List of mosquito genera. -- Balfa (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have occasionally thought the same; using the param more and more often, I am getting used to it, but I suppose novice readers do find it counterintuitive. The way it works now is basically just opposite as the other sections do (which have title-terms linked to an invariable target).

It could be streamlined, using Balfa's example, to

| diversity = 41 genera

to appear as

Diversity

41 genera

Besides being more reader-friendly, this would do away with a line of article code, and make the template code agree with the other sections in structure.

"the taxobox is the best thing since computers started to have a monitor" - you can say that again. Best template ever. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean that the above should be the result of

| diversity = 41 genera | diversity_link = List of mosquito genera

I don't like the idea of linking unless a diversity link is explicitly given.

Personally, I think the diversity_link parameter is overdoing it, and it would be better to convert all these to

| diversity = [[List of mosquito genera|41 genera]]

However I agree that what is proposed is a step forward, and it doesn't hurt to do this in baby steps. Hesperian 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Another issue, perhaps for consideration in the future, is that taxon count is not really a measure of diversity. There may be more genetic and phenetic diversity in a single species, in some less charismatic area of the family tree, e.g. algae, bacteria; than there are in an entire family of birds. Hesperian 00:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't see how we can implement this, because there is no guarantee that there aren't taxobox instances out there that look like

| diversity = [[#Taxonomy|41 genera]] | diversity_link = List of mosquito genera

Updating this template as proposed would break such instances, creating horrid messes like

[[List of mosquito genera|[[#Taxonomy|41 genera]]]]

Hesperian 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. That's an interesting issue. I don't know much about template editing, but I guess it looks like the more common sections of the taxobox (such as "Scientific classification") have their section titles hardcoded so, for example, "Scientific classification" always links to Biological classification in every taxobox, and there's no control over that. If that's the case, then that's another way where this Diversity Link thing steps out of line. We could just remove the diversity_link attribute and hardcode the diversity section header text to hyperlink to Biodiversity, and leave it up to the editors to have the "41 genera" text link to whatever they want it to. Then it will work just the way things like "ordo = [[Diptera]]" work. Balfa (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So can someone make the change, removing the diversity_link attribute of the Taxobox and instead hardcoding that text to link to Biodiversity? Balfa (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the backward-compatibility issues are too big here to implement this right away. Perhaps we could default |diversity-link= to a link to Biodiversity, thereby avoiding problems like the one Hesperian mentioned? Ucucha 14:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

The standard for synonyms is somewhat unclear. Who gets cited for the synonym? The original author, or the person who proposed that a species be placed in a different genus? I've seen both used for the same species. Can some more details be placed on the template page? Innotata 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Standard taxonomic practice, for animals at least, is to cite as follows:

Hesperomys molitor Winge, 1887
Lundomys molitor: Voss and Carleton, 1993

In this case, a species was first described in the genus Hesperomys and subsequently transferred to Lundomys. In this case, the first authors to use this name combination are cited, with a colon between the name combination and the authors. See Lundomys and Pseudoryzomys for synonymies constructed in this way. I believe that there is a different convention for plants, though. Ucucha 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that the authority field in the taxobox will always be the author of the original description, but if it is now in a different genus the authority will be in parentheses. Note that the binomial authority field for Ucucha's example is "Lundomys molitor (Winge, 1887)". --Aranae (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This still isn't much help. (Note: I know the rules of taxonomy, etc.) How do I, if I should, cite combinations for which the original proposer is 'lost in the mists of time'? And so on… Innotata 17:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Preferably, finding the original reference. I understand that that is not always possible, however, and I am honestly not sure what would be the best course of action in that case. Perhaps we should use "auct." or simply leave out the author.

In general, I think we may need to set some more standards for synonyms, as the current text here at Template:Taxobox does not really address all questions. Apart from the issues with how we cite authors for synonyms, there are several other reasonable ways to fill the |synonyms= field, depending on whether we:

Include all, the most important, or no secondary name combinations (such as Lundomys molitor above)
Include all, the most important, or no junior synonyms (such as Holochilus magnus for Lundomys)

My preference is to include all junior synonyms and the most important name combinations until a limit of about five. The most important name combinations include the original and current combinations, as well as any others which have been in common use for a significant amount of time. This is illustrated in the synonymies I wrote for Lundomys and Pseudoryzomys. When there are more than about five synonyms, I would start dropping the less significant synonyms (names described as subspecies and always retained as such, species names that were quickly synonymized, etcetera). Ucucha 17:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's say for this example that Oryzomys molitor had been used as a name for Lundomys in numerous references. Ideally the synonym field should contain "Oryzomys molitor: [author], [date]" representing the first name combination. But I see no problem with "Oryzomys molitor (Winge, 1887)". Note that there's no colon since it is referring to the original description, but it is still in parentheses as it is not the original name combination. When the first name combination is eventually tracked down by another editor, this can be switched to that format. In the meantime, no erroneous information is presented. --Aranae (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A disadvantage of that is that it may introduce inconsistency into the list; in your example, "Oryzomys molitor (Winge, 1887)" would be listed next to "Lundomys molitor: Voss and Carleton, 1993". I don't quite like that, and I think it is potentially confusing. Ucucha 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My worry is that Innotata's problem will be the norm, not the exception. The number of editors with access to the needed library resources (as well as the motivation) to track down first usage is going to be limited. Excluding a reference for those synonyms is certainly a reasonable option. I also agree that there should be better instructions somewhere (divided by code). I think in my years here I have done all of the above (plus a few embarrassing alternatives). --Aranae (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. But what about senior synonyms? They're important too. Older authors like Harry C. Oberholser and those who take their species names from them use these a lot. I'll try to do as you've suggested wherever I can. Whenever I see obviously incorrect synonym citations I'll correct them. Also: I don't think it is really very important to give the original name of a species as a synonym: Who thinks the Northern Gannet is a pelican today? Lastly: For a lot of bird species it is downright impossible to list all the synonyms. Innotata 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

(unindent) I think it's important to give as many synonyms as possible. Given the vast amount of literature out there, anyone can go searching for a name used in an older (or not so old) publication. If redirected to an article, they can find out why by looking at the taxobox's synonyms section. In plant articles, I include both taxonomic and nomenclatural synonyms, which is roughly equivalent to zoology's objective and subjective synonyms. I think both are important, especially if widely accepted as synonyms. I used to include auct. non. and nom. illeg. (see Utricularia simulans), but now I typically don't (listing every incorrect name ever listed on an herbarium sheet for that species is cumbersome and unnecessary, unless that name was published with reference to that herbarium collection as an example of the species). Listing synonymy is important, and including the very first published name is exceedingly important. It's not about who today would consider the Northern Gannet a pelican, it's about letting the readers know about the species taxonomic history - where was it classified first? When was it decided it should be moved? How many times has it been moved? Was there a difference of opinion on the taxonomic rank the species should hold (which is why I include subspecific synonyms)? This should be dealt with in the text, but the taxobox is meant to give a brief snapshot of that and this is what the synonyms field is for. My $0.02. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See also this conversation (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive30#Working systematically with common names), which also included ideas on synonyms. This lead me to begin creating categories for my synonym redirects, e.g. Category:Drosera by synonymy. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The situation is different with birds etc., and so are the citing conventions. Making a list of synonyms for some species would double the height of the page, I expect. (with New World sparrows, for instance, to judge by the AOU checklist) I think I agree with "Include all, the most important, or no synonyms". This is really the most practical way to do this, even if it isn't ideal. Thanks for your "two cents" nonetheless, Innotata 17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

I tend to decide on a case-per-case basis. For some Senna (genus) I had to make separate sections, as it happened that the synonymy is the only real important thing we have on them now (beware novices... but it is really good anyone can now look up Cassia emarginata). Elsewhere I decide like you said - if there is nothing to be said as regards synonymy, I usually let synonyms accumulate by and by. If synonymy is interesting, I usually try to make a complete list while I'm at it. If this becomes too unwieldy, it gets an extra section in the article (like in some Sennas). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW the rules as regards citation in zoology are uneven.

What is wrong is the botany-like way used widely 120 years ago - "(L.)" for example. Other than that, HBW uses original author of specific name (with parentheses as needed), not the first one to use the comb. nov.. But I've seen that too.

I agree that it should be decided on a case by case basis. With respect to "I think it's important to give as many synonyms as possible.", I reply "Yes, but not necessarily in the taxobox. Hesperian 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

The current text at Template:Taxobox#Synonyms, in my view, doesn't give adequate guidance on how to use the "Synonyms" section of the taxobox and doesn't reflect current practice on organism pages. I looked at current organism FAs and noted how synonyms were handled; the results are at User:Ucucha/synonyms.

I propose the following replacement for the text (comments in small text):

Where a taxon has synonyms, the synonyms argument may be used. Synonyms are alternative scientific names used for the same taxon.

Replaced "species" with "taxon". I have seen several instances of synonyms for genera being given, and I see no reason not to do that. Also included a definition of a synonym. I am dividing the following text into subsections for clarity.

Formatting

Synonyms may be given in a bulleted list, like this:

The chronological order is new.

| synonyms = 
*''synonym1'' <small>Authority1</small>
*''synonym2'' <small>Authority2</small>

The bulleted list is now given as the preferred format, as it is used in most articles. I also changed the example to not use line breaks between the synonym and the authority, as this is how it is done in all but a few FAs.

The following format can also be used:

| synonyms = 
''synonym1'' <small>Authority1</small><br/>
''synonym2'' <small>Authority2</small>

Non-bulleted list given as an alternative, as this is used in a lot of article and may sometimes be preferable, especially when there are few synonyms and authorities are not given. I removed the text about the "small" HTML being discouraged, as no one seems to care about it anyway and the discussion linked doesn't give clear support for it either.

So far for the examples, now we need guidance on how actually to assemble the list. The previous text only dealt with homonyms and with getting information from Nomenclator Zoologicus, but we want more.

Scope

More prominent names (which have been in use in numerous publications over a long period of time) should be preferred when space is limited, with other synonyms given in the text; when feasible, a complete list can be given in the taxobox. Complete lists should include all names and combinations of names that have been used for the taxon, including nomenclaturally invalid names such as homonyms (names that had been used earlier for another taxon of the same rank that is governed by the same nomenclatural code).

This seems to be the general consensus of the above discussion. Note the chronological order. I condensed the part about homonymy in the original text.

Authorities

Taxonomic authorities should be given for each synonym. Different formats are recommended for authorities by the different nomenclatural codes, so the following guidelines are specific for each code:

For animals and other organisms regulated by the ICZN, give the original author for each separate name with the year the name was published, separated by a comma. For new name combinations, which arise for example when a species is moved to another genus or when a species is demoted to subspecies rank, the author and date should be given in the same way but they should be separated clearly from the name combination by using a colon (:) or a dash (–) to emphasize that the entry is a name combination, not a completely new name. See Lundomys for an example of a complete synonymy, including several name combinations. When no authority can be found for a particular name or name combination, omit the author and date.

This text codifies the way this is done in scientific and some Wikipedia synonymies. The content of the last sentence has been discussed above; I prefer this, but we may have to talk a little more on it.

For plants and other organisms regulated by the ICBN, ...
For bacteria and archaea, which are regulated by the ICNB, ...

I am afraid I won't be able to give a good guideline here. Could plant and microbio editors please complete these parts?

Resources

Several large resources are available on the Internet to help in assembling synonymies. These may be hard to understand for non-specialists, but they often give comprehensive information that is very useful for finding synonyms. Some examples:

Nomenclator Zoologicus has data for all but the most recently-established animal genera.
The International Plant Names Index gives data for many plant names.
Index Fungorum has data for fungi at the species level and below.
Mammalian Species has synonymies for many mammals.

There are more good resources than NZ. This list may be expanded considerably.

My objective in drafting this proposal is mainly to codify existing practice and to give editors wishing to add synonymies adequate guidance on this page, which should give comprehensive instructions on how to use the taxobox. I also hope to discourage some practices that are confusing or that conflict with the relevant nomenclatural codes.

Any comments are welcome. Feel free to edit this proposal, but please leave a note here for substantive changes. Ucucha 04:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

On a quick look, all looks ok, except I object to the suggestion to use chronological order for synonyms. I frequently preferred alphabetical listing. In some cases, I put the basionym at the top of the list. And especially since botanical taxa authorities don't use dates, chronological order isn't as meaningful. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the chronological order out; I put it in mainly to prevent synonyms from appearing in random order, but as there are evidently several reasonable ways to order them, it's best to just skip it here. Ucucha 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like instruction creep to me, especially the information on citation formats and online resources. And I agree that recommending chronological order is not warranted. I reckon this could be compacted down to:

Where a taxon has synonyms, the synonyms argument may be used. Synonyms may be listed with bullets, like this:

| synonyms = 
*''synonym1'' <small>Authority1</small>
*''synonym2'' <small>Authority2</small>

or without bullets, like this:

| synonyms = 
''synonym1'' <small>Authority1</small><br/>
''synonym2'' <small>Authority2</small>

When a taxon has many synonyms, consider listing only the most prominent ones in the taxobox, and giving the full list in the article prose.

Hesperian 04:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I had anticipated that instruction creep could be a problem, and that's why I introduced the headers and strived to keep the text brief. I think "synonyms" is a field that is problematic for a lot of people using the taxobox who aren't as experienced with it as you are, and I try to give these people some guidance. I have no particular problem with striking the part about online resources, although it too can be quite useful to people looking for information on how to fill the "synonyms" field. Additional instructions are not automatically instruction creep when they serve a good purpose. Ucucha 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken; I suppose there is nothing wrong with the extra information so long as it is presented as helpful information rather than directives. Hesperian 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this completely, at least as far as animals are concerned. I don't like the idea of synonyms in the text, for all but the most complicated taxonomic messes. In such cases, I think synonyms should be covered with prose. I also agree that a chronological order should be followed. As for the use of botanical abrevs in zoology, yes, that happens, particularly with "L." innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I regularly cover synonyms in the "Taxonomy" section of my articles, but I also dislike the idea of putting an actual list in the text, as opposed to just mentioning synonyms in the flowing text. Wikipedia:Embedded list also discourages such lists. Ucucha 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  - While embedded lists are discouraged, having the information presented in a list form is better than omitting it because it wasn't in prose form. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Aplogies for bugging in, but there are some significant misunderstandings in the above. Regardless of a change of rank, the authortity+year always follow the taxon, but when genus has been changed brackets are used around the authority and year. Otherwise, wikipedia is disregarding the rules by ICZN. A bit more here. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)