Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Eukaryote

Looks like there's something funky with the taxobox. Something to do with the colspan of |domain_authority= and then the alternative phylogeny self-made section. Perhaps someone with template expertise could take a look at this? Rkitko ^(talk) 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not particularly enamored of do-it-yourself section adding in the taxobox, though. Ucucha 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking trinomial names properly

I have edited the sandbox at Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox to change the linking for trinomial names from Trinomial nomenclature (essentially a disambiguation page) to either Trinomen or Ternary name as appropriate. The link appearance is unchanged, only the destination changes. See side-by-side examples at Template:Taxobox/testcases (last two examples).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I added fungi and Archaeplastida, which also use the ICBN, to the switch. Perhaps this switch could use the same templates (like {{get regnum()}} used elsewhere in the taxobox code. Ucucha 05:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you spot a breakage in the next several hours....

I'm adding several tracking categories to aid in Lepidopteran cleanup. IF YOU NOTICE A BREAKAGE, PLEASE REVERT! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservation status

Recently an article has been created on the very rare Abutilon pitcairnense, a plant found only on Pitcairn island. In the sources for the article it is stated that the species was though extinct until 2003 when a single wild specimen was found. Through cuttings and seed propagation more specimens have been grown. However, the wild specimen was killed in a landslide in 2005. I have twice tried to add the ew conservation status to the taxobox to represent that the specie is extinct in the wild. Both times it has been reverted by Stemonitis who states the taxobox parameter should only be used for IUCN evaluated species. I am of the opinion thatsince it is clearly stated in the reliable sources the species is extinct in the wild the parameter should be usable in the taxobox even if it is not evaliuated at this time by the IUCN. Thoughts?--Kevmin § 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I stated (or tried to – apologies if it wasn't clear) that IUCN status codes should only be used in conjunction with an explicit IUCN status system (e.g. version 2.3 or version 3.1). Other status systems are also frequently used in the taxobox, and include CITES, ESA, COSEWIC, TNC and others. It may not be immediately obvious, but the status= parameter is not actually for the taxon's real status, but only for its status on one of various lists (since anything else will tend to be subjective albeit less so for things like "extinct in the wild"). The IUCN Red List is one, but there are others. The fact that adding status=EW without adding status_system=iucn3.1 (or similar) invokes a cleanup category is an indication that some information is missing. Wikipedia:Conservation status was marked as inactive last year, but only because it hadn't been edited much recently (which might be interpreted as stability rather than obsolescence). As far as I can see, it is still a pretty accurate listing of the status systems and the associated statuses that are accomodated by the taxobox code. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar situation with Oryzomys peninsulae; perhaps the solution I used there (custom text in the |status= field with a |status_ref= to the source) can also be used for this plant. Ucucha 17:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I should think that as long as you've got a reliable source, it should be sufficient; just don't use the IUCN template to produce the graphic; use plain text instead. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Template messed up

{{Taxobox}} has been messed up. The history of Brachiopod now shows a mess just before the GA review (13:52, 7 April 2010) and at the end of the review (21:21, 9 April 2010). This means someone messed up {{Taxobox}} later and it has not been fixed. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

After some study, I think I have figured out what happened. In versions up until November 2010, the brachiopod article was specifying a taxobox color using a line "|color=#D3D3A4". On 6 June 2010, Smith609 changed the Taxobox and Taxobox colour templates so that they require colors to be specified using a format such as "color=rgb(216,173,65)". This left the brachiopod page broken until 29 November 2010, when Smith609 fixed it by removing the color field (among other changes). It seems possible that this problem may have had browser-specific effects, otherwise it is puzzling how it could have gone unfixed for so long. In any case, the Taxobox template is not currently broken, but if there are any pages that use it that continue to specify colors in the old way, they probably are broken. Looie496 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we may need an error category to catch colors beginning with "#". Anyone know a charAt() style template? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See Template:String_templates_see_also_text (strange title!). {{str index}} or {{str index any}} or {{chr}} all extract a character from a string given its index position. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• See Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color. The tracking category is triggered when the first character of "color" (where not automatically calculated) is not the letter r. It's an exhausting number.... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! That was embarrassing. I just ruined the taxobox in thousands of articles...off to the sandbox now... Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Once the category self-empties (due to my unfortunate mistake), we should see Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color functioning properly. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if the color parameter has been removed, it must not eject its passed parameter onto the page, as it is currently doing for thousands of viruses and bacteria. See the word "khaki" at the start of Babesia divergens, and "violet" at Alphaherpesvirinae. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The error may be due to this line in Template:Taxobox/core:

Invalid color: -->{{#ifeq:{{{colour|}}}|{{taxobox/Error colour}}|[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]}}{{#ifeq:{{str index|{{{colour|}}}|1}}|r||{{{colour}}}[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]}}<!--

The second #ifeq: outputs {{{colour}}}[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]] if the colour value does not begin with "r". It should just output [[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]], i.e. {{{colour}}} here should be removed. I cannot edit this template, otherwise I would try this fix. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A different question is why this error check is needed at all. What is wrong with specifying a colour other than in the rgb() format? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it to do with the parsing of the color parameter, rather than colour? Any other named parameter (e.g. coluor) is simply ignored, rather than spilling its contents over the screen. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Taxobox}}, which is the only one directly used in articles, accepts both color and colour as alternatives and passes the resultant value of whichever is used to {{Taxobox/core}} which only accepts the parameter colour. So if you specify EITHER color or colour in using {{Taxobox}} you'll see the error (as I've tested and verified at Agathis ovata). I'm pretty confident that the error is as I've said above. I'll now test it by copying both templates, {{Taxobox}} and {{Taxobox/core}}, to my userspace and using them from there. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix works If you go to Agathis ovata, this is temporarily using copies of {{Taxobox}} and {{Taxobox/core}} in my user space with the fix above applied. "Lightgreen" does not now appear on the page. Can an admin please edit {{Taxobox/core}} as noted above. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored Agathis ovata to use {{Taxobox}} and checked a few other pages, which now seem ok.

I'd still like Martin or Bob to explain why the error check is needed at all. There's (perhaps) a case for checking that a colour is one of the 'approved' colours and categorizing articles as "Using unapproved colours", but I can't see why a redundant colour value should lead to the page appearing at Category:Taxoboxes_with_an_invalid_color. The few I've looked at don't have invalid colours, they have valid colours in a format which has been decided to be invalid. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see my mistake now. Thanks for catching that. Peter, I've not investigated the invalidation of non-rgb's yet. I might do that tonight if I get a moment. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding based on what smith609 wrote is that colors specified in hsl format will also work (e.g., something like color=hsl(215,143,19)), although I haven't tested any. The basic point, however it is worded, is that colors specified in a format like #D3D3A4 worked until June 2010 but now cause hideous breakage, at least in some browsers. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't restrain myself-- I went ahead and figured out why it doesn't work (but haven't looked for a solution yet). The {{taxobox/core}} renders the color using plain HTML. Here's a sample of the code it uses:

<th colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background-color: brown">
<a href="/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></th>

<th colspan="2" style="text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)">
<a href="/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></th>

Unfortunately, passing along a numeric color value as a parameter (regardless of the parameter's use) messes it up (due to the WikiParser converting the pound sign into an ordered list item:

<th>colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color:
<ol>
<li>2F053E" | <a href="/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy)" title="Synonym (taxonomy)">Synonyms</a></li>
</ol>
</th>

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sooooo we're going to need a piece of code to wrap around the passed colour parameter to strip the ordered list formatting from it and stick a pound sign on there. Fun. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

An alternative is to get people to wrap <nowiki> around their color codes if they type them. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually think anything needs to be done except make sure there are no currently broken pages. It was problematic back in June 2010 to make a change that was backward-incompatible, but anybody who tries to use a "raw" color currently ought to see immediately that the results are incorrect. Those # codes are a nasty way to specify colors in the first place, so I don't think it is essential for us to support them. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The above means that the error test for "invalid colour" at the end of {{tl:taxobox/core}} is not right.

• It will trap legitimate colour specifications which use the standard words, such as "green" (but not "red" because it begins with "r").
• It will trap hsl() formats.
• If someone has specified a # format colour (which by the way I don't agree is a nasty way to specify colours, but then I'm used to thinking in hex) then they will see the error immediately and it's unlikely that the article will be left in that state. (Btw <nowiki>#FCC</nowiki> works fine.)

Why not just remove the error test? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe at one point the error test you're referring to did test positive on a few pages (it was originally put there to help clean up pages following a major modification to the template), but the check shouldn't be necessary anymore for the same reason you've just specified. I'll remove both tests now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks to a helpful word from Patrick, the {{;}} template, and the {{COLON}} template, hex colors can now be entered intuitively, if there is such a thing as intuitive hex color entry! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Planned revision

Just a heads-up-- probably within the next 24 hours, I'll be making the code modification presented above in Template talk:Taxobox#RfC, as NoomBot will be finishing up the unranked_familia cleanup within the next few hours.

Please be advised that following the code modification, unranked_familia will appear beneath superfamilia in the taxobox instead of above it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Completed

Misspecified taxa

I see we now have categories for a number of misspecified taxa, such as "family" instead of "familia". I have been fixing a few of these, and one misspecification that I have come across a few times is "classes" for "classis". It might be worth seeing how many taxoboxes try to use that parameter, and fixing them. Any other misspellings have only cropped up once each in my checks so far. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added that tracking category, as well as one to detect "familie", a German word that I know I type (but hopefully have never saved) frequently. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to merge all those tracking categories together (perhaps after removing any current backlog), so people only need to follow one category to catch new problematic pages. Ucucha 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested conservation status

Occasionally, papers describing new species suggest an IUCN Red List conservation status for their new taxa (examples: Drymoreomys; Lagidium ahuacaense). I had a brief discussion at User talk:Stemonitis#New status system about such taxa; Stemonitis feels that we should exclude such a status from the taxobox and wait for the IUCN to make it official, and I prefer to report the conservation status in the taxobox where we can. What do others think? Ucucha 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. IUCN provides full guidelines for using their system, so I should think these assessments are valid, though it should be made clear somehow that IUCN Red List did not actually make the assessment. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Without an official body ruling on it, I think that material should remain in the body of the text, not in the taxobox. I could easily see such a parameter getting abused—"I feel the ring-tailed lemur should be listed as endangered" or "Many experts feel the aye-aye should be critically endangered, per the following sources." Maybe a "see text" option is in order? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If the sources show they have followed the guidelines relevant to the system used, I see no reason it would be an issue. Wikipedia is here to represent a neutral point of view, after all. If two varying assessments are made by different parties following the guidelines set forth by IUCN, I'd say both should qualify for inclusion. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to limit this to taxa that don't have an official IUCN status, since the IUCN is always a better source for the interpretation of its own criteria than any other expert. Ucucha 19:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that, seeing as how IUCN actually gets in there and does the field research. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Binomial name vs Binomen

Being a ridiculous pleonasm, the term 'Binomial name' has largely been replaced by 'binomen'. Isn't it time for WP to follow suit? Androstachys (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that assertion? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See Binomen and follow up the reference given there - else Google 'binomen'. Androstachys (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that zoological nomenclature? What about plants? Hesperian 09:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, "binomial name" is still in wide usage, pleonasm or no. It doesn't matter if the Codes mandate one terminology if others are in wider usage. That's why I asked for evidence, meaning evidence of usage patterns. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that it is in wide usage, but even if it is that doesn't make it correct - it remains a grammatic and logical monstrosity. As an encyclopaedia WP has a certain obligation to set the standard rather than to follow the herd. Androstachys (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just "Scientific name"? MMartyniuk (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost any change would be an improvement! Androstachys (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is "ridiculous pleonasm" a ridiculous pleonasm? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, common usage is an important determinant of titling in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is positively expected to "follow the herd", and absolutely cannot "set the standard". --Stemonitis (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy/guidelines, which you so blithely misquote, have nothing to say about the topics with which you link them. 'Neutral point of view' does not mean 'follow the herd', 'common name usage' is about common names, and 'original research' has nothing to do with 'setting a standard'. Try to put forward some cogent arguments for or against. Androstachys (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no. Be fair. WP:UCN states that "Wikipedia ... uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and therefore means that we should follow common usage. WP:NPV mandates "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", which implies not promoting one minority opinion disproportionately, but following existing usage ("the herd"); WP:NOR proscribes "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources", which would cover us setting [new] standards. Even if I didn't link to the correct policies and guidelines, it wouldn't change the fact that we have to follow the sources.

I don't necessarily oppose the renaming you suggest, not least because it isn't clear to me which is the predominant usage; I merely want to be sure that whatever name we use, it is the appropriate one as determined by Wikipedia's existing policies, which means taking the name most commonly used by reputable sources. To that end, I would like to see some evidence of usage. Your wording suggests that it is the grammar which offends you most, and that is not a valid criterion here. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes have their present format largely because of decisions made by Wikipedians about WP policy. If WP had to wait for some other encyclopaedia to set a precedent before it moved, nothing would ever get created or done - be realistic. Androstachys (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be another encyclopaedia. There are thousands of authors who have written about [binomina / binomial names / binary names / scientific names / binomials] at least tangentially, and probably several who have written about them directly. We can (indeed, must) follow their usage. I'm only asking to see some evidence; I don't think that's unreasonable. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that "binomen" is zoological nomenclature, and inappropriate for plant taxoboxes. The ICBN uses "binomial" as noun. Hesperian 11:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Since plant and animal names both use the Linnaean binomial system, I can't see why the use of 'binomen' by the plant world would be inappropriate. Androstachys (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

'Binomial' would be a great improvement, even though strictly it started life as an adjective. In fact, the Shorter Oxford defines it (amongst other things) as "a name having two parts, especially of a plant or animal". Androstachys (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Or is it an adjective with the implied noun omitted and left to be assumed? I'd be inclined to think that much. The English language is full of that sort of adjective usage. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. There are different codes for different taxa, however much we would prefer there to be only one.

2. There are significant differences between the codes (some, but only some, of these differences are covered at Binomial_nomenclature#Codes).

Wikipedia editors cannot impose the usage of one code on taxa covered by another code. Picking up what Androstachys wrote, I might just as well say that since plant and animal names both use the Linnaean system, I can't see why the use of connecting terms such as "varietas" by the animal world would not be appropriate or that I can't see why zoologists should not give up using tautonyms and rename all species with such names.

(By the way, 'binomial' is incorrect under the current ICZN; strictly it should be "binominal". However, as has been discussed before, this usage doesn't seem to have been widely taken up.)Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

List sub-tempates

The sub-templates {{Species list}} and {{Taxon list}}, which call {{Species list/core}}, format their output HTML as a series of DIVs, not a LI-based list. This is semantically incorrect and reduces accessibility. The issue may be addressed by calling {{Unbulleted list}}, or by using the applicable parts of its code in {{Species list/core}}. No visual change would result from such an improvement. Who has sufficient knowledge of the existing templates, to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Martin provided reasoning for this method a few months ago. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've left a note on his talk page; but he's on a wikibreak - can anyone else help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin has created a lot of complex templates. My experience is that he knows what he is doing, and his templates should not be altered without input from him. Is there any urgent reason for changing this immediately rather than waiting, say, a few weeks? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No urgency; but we should never rely on single individual - what if they leave Wikipedia, or go to edit the great 'pedia in the sky? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is one of my concerns about complex templates. The Wikimedia template language is technically complex and has an appalling syntax (I've written programs in lots of languages for far too many years to reveal, and this must be one of the worst to read and debug). One consequence is that sometimes an apparently simple change has unforeseen consequences. The use of a template is supposed to be documented at the "/doc" page. The code of a template could be documented by inline comments, but usually isn't (at least not adequately – but then whose code is?). Martin not only created important templates like {{cite doi}}, but via his toolserver account, on which the necessary bot runs, appears to be solely responsible for maintaining such templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought of that as well. I worked closely with Martin on the templates, and so did Erik. However, I'm quite booked at the moment and finding time to test this sort of thing might have to wait until things slow down over on my end. I encourage any programmers who have the time to study it very closely and even toy around with the code (in sandboxes!) to try to learn how it works and how to manipulate it. It's absolutely amazing what has been done with nothing more than the MediaWiki syntax designed for editing Wikipedia, and the more people we have who know how it works and how to modify it, the better-equipped we'll be for jobs like this. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pigs, if Martin leaves us, we'll figure it out. Hopefully he's checked in the source/used shared accounts/etc for his bots. But yeah, the template syntax is atrocious for doing crazy stuff like this. It's even worse than XSLT, in my opinion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; I used to think that XSLT was the worst language in which I'd programmed, but now I know I was wrong... Peter coxhead (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done in these edits - testing looks okay but do holler if there are any problems. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All those I checked seem fine. I was surprised how few articles use this very useful template (and a substantial fraction of those are in taxoboxes I created). It needs some advertising I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)