Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the automated taxobox system as a whole – not just one page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 41.5 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This talk page can be used to discuss issues with the automated taxobox system that are common to the entire system, not just one of its templates. Discussions of this nature prior to 2017 can be found at Template talk:Automatic taxobox
Those familiar with the system prior to mid-2016 are advised to read Notes for "old hands".
Is there any precedent on taxoboxes for 'hypothetical' taxons? I guess they're all hypothetical at some level. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is precedent; see e.g. Eocyte hypothesis and Articulata hypothesis (there's relevant discussion going on at Template_talk:Taxonbar#Further_discussion, with the newly created Wikidata item taxon hypothesis (Q124477390) stemming from that). I'm not sure that the precedent needs to be followed if something is really framed as a hypothesis (i.e., we might consider removing those taxoboxes).
- It gets more complicated with Tactopoda and Antennopoda, which are framed as "proposed clades", but which represent mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding the relationship of tardigrades, arthropods and onychophorans.
- Avifilopluma is another weird one. It was the last article tagged for WikiProject Dinosaurs to get an automatic taxobox. It is the clade of feathered animals, with feathers not being precisely defined, and it not being clear exactly which taxa would be included. Plantdrew (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, will leave alone for the moment. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- There are articles for Columbaves, Inopinaves and Aequorlitornithes (all from Prum et al, 2015), as well as Columbea and Passerea (from Jarvis et al 2014). Gruimorphae also has one, as do the more questionable Otidae and Gruae. While I think it is useful to have short articles clearly defining these proposals, perhaps the Neoaves article could be expanded discuss the alternative arrangements, which are currently shown in he cladograms. I think this new proposal certainly should be covered. — Jts1882 | talk 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Automatic links to species, commons, data
editAny interest in adding automatic links to wikispecies, commons categories and galleries, and wikidata at the bottom of our taxboxes to improve integration with our sister projects? Compare hr:Dracaena aethiopica / en:Dracaena aethiopica. Coded in hr:Template:Taksokvir (note the four tracking categories). Ponor (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- We use {{taxonbar}} to link to various taxon IDs, including wikidata, wikispecies, etc. All of the IDs are stored at Wikidata. We could consider adding commons and gallery to the taxonbar. @Tom.Reding and Jts1882: thoughts on this? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a more prominent place. {{Taxonbar}}, to me, is something that experienced editors might need, it's not very friendly to our readers. It's also not shown to >2/3 of them Ponor (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Instead of duplicating the effect in the taxobox, we can perhaps work to make the taxonbar available on mobile. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunate side-effects to that would include:
- people complaining about WP:OVERLINKING
- people removing {{Commons}}, {{Commons category}}, etc., due to the presence of a link in {{Taxonbar}}
- I don't agree with this behavior, but it happens relatively often. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a more prominent place. {{Taxonbar}}, to me, is something that experienced editors might need, it's not very friendly to our readers. It's also not shown to >2/3 of them Ponor (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against an unobtrusive addition at the bottom of the taxobox. However, as an infobox, the taxobox is supposed to summarize information on the taxon, so it is probably better for links to other resources to be elsewhere.
- There was a previous discussion about including wikispecies and commons in the taxonbar or only using the templates {{Commons category}} and {{Wikispecies}} to avoid redundancy. In the end the status quo was kept (with Wikispecies in the taxonbar). I'm not adverse to adding the commons gallery or commons category.
- The taxonbar doesn't appear on mobile because it uses Navbox, which is not allowed on mobile view for some reason (possibly because you can't collapse large navboxes or they are condised too large for downloading on phones). I believe there were some proposed changes aimed at making a mobile compliant navbox. @Tom.Reding: do you know anything on this? It would certainly be possible to make an alternative output for the taxonbar without using navbox, although this may go against decisions made elsewhere for such content (e.g. authority control). — Jts1882 | talk 15:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Mobile & style issues are sort of a black box to me. My impression is that there's a desire, and some work being done, to, at some point, make navboxes viewable on mobile, but I don't keep up with that at all. I don't know of another navbox-like utility (not that I've looked for one). If there were a flag or something in Lua that would designate a user's device as mobile or non-mobile, then an alternate method could be used (even something dumb like an un/ordered list, assuming consensus, etc., etc.). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way of detecting the skin in Lua. It can only be done in JS or CSS. Without Wikimedia support, this means any solution must use CSS, which can be customised for different skins (including the mobile one, Minerva). I'm not sure how Navboxes are blocked in Mobile view, but I assume it's server side, as the HTML code for navbox is not on the page (although strangely their templatestyles is). An alternative output could mimick the navbox styles and hav different displays for mobile and desktop (or narrow and wide screen).
- An alternative output from taxonbar shouldn't be too difficult. I did some experimenting in the module sandbox some time ago, using horizontal and vertical lists, with collapsible options. However, it would be good to find out what Wikimedia plans are for navboxes and mobile. — Jts1882 | talk 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Mobile & style issues are sort of a black box to me. My impression is that there's a desire, and some work being done, to, at some point, make navboxes viewable on mobile, but I don't keep up with that at all. I don't know of another navbox-like utility (not that I've looked for one). If there were a flag or something in Lua that would designate a user's device as mobile or non-mobile, then an alternate method could be used (even something dumb like an un/ordered list, assuming consensus, etc., etc.). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Taxonbar appears to be overpopulated, uncurated, containing numerous links to, from a reader's perspective, low-quality sites (database dumps); on mobile devices this would be one half of the screen full of some links. On the other hand, I know that a link to the commons category/gallery will take me to moderately well-curated images of the species, which are made and heavily used by us. Since our articles don't have more than a picture of two, and many readers probably want to see more, I am still not convinced that adding a wikispecies link and one or two commons links would be a bad idea, as unobtrusive as we want it to be. While the taxobox is intended to summarize information on the taxon (meaning: classification), we already deviate from this by incorporating images, statuses, and range maps. Should this be discussed anywhere else? Can we BOLDly add it and wait for the avalanche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponor (talk • contribs)
- Back in the old days, we did try putting those links in the taxobox. It got shot down. This is why Tom said what he did above. Those were the arguements against. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Taxonbar links are curated to some extent. We've decided not to include databases published by governments of non-English speaking countries. And there are many Wikidata properties for taxonomic databases that aren't included in taxonbars (where there has never been any discussion to include or exclude them).
- I'm against including (potentially) 4 links to Wikispecies in desktop view. Currently links appear in the desktop sidebar, in the taxonbar, and via {{Wikispecies}} (if present). A link the in the taxobox would be a fourth. Sidebar and taxonbar links don't appear in mobile view. It would be good to enable links to Wikispecies and Commons in mobile in some way aside from {{Wikispecies}} and {{Commons}}. Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I concur, PD.
- Let's see if I can sum up. There's a desire for links to Wikispecies/CommonsCats/CommonsGal/Wikidata to be available to mobile users, if they exist. Taxonbar is where these are already present in desktop, but is suppressed in mobile, as is the sidebar where some of these links are present in desktop. Links to CC, CG and WS should be listed on WD, if they exist. So it seems that only a link to WD would suffice, though providing all four would ease the burden on the user to click through WD to get to the others.
- This seems to be our list of current options, though they weren't all stated above:
- Add these links as originally requested to the Taxobox system.
- Add these links as originally requested to the Taxobox system, but have them appear only for mobile users; so CSS or JS changes
- Tweak the CSS or JS (or ?) so that the Taxonbar appears on mobile
- Tweak the CSS or JS (or ?) so that the Taxonbar appears on mobile, but in a limited form with just WS/CC/CG/WD, if available.
- Option 1 is ruled out by history. It's a good ask, but I don't think it will ever see traction. All the rest, as far as I can figure, need someone who can tweak the CSS or JS so that the good magic happens. Do we need to poke elsewhere for CSS/JS/? support on this? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another option is to create a simple template that displays a box with the wikimedia links that only displays on mobile. If could be floated right below the taxobox or placed at the bottom of the page instead of the taxonbar. The taxobox or taxonbar templates could be used to place it automatically. It can be given a class so that it will only be shown in mobile (the CSS would be set using templatestyles). — Jts1882 | talk 07:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- A summary of relevant differences between desktop and mobile views (mostly redundant with above discussion).
- Template {{taxonbar}} is only shown in desktop, so mobile views don't get information that is exclusive to taxonbar.
- In desktop, Wikispecies is shown in sidebar, taxonbar (if other identifiers) and in template {{Wikispecies}} or {{Wikispecies-inline}} (if present).
- In mobile, Wikispecies is only shown if template {{Wikispecies}} or {{Wikispecies-inline}} is on the page.
- In desktop, the Commons gallery or category is shown in the sidebar and in in template {{Commons}} or {{Commons-inline}} or {{Commons category}}
- In mobile, Commons gallery or category is only shown if template {{Commons}} or {{Commons-inline}} or {{Commons category}} is only page.
- Normally only one of the Commons gallery or category is linked. Both the sidebar and the commons templates show the gallery if it exists and the category if there is no gallery. Both can be linked if {{Commons category}} is also added.
- In short, mobile users need the wikispecies and commons templates if they are to see wikimedia links. Some numbers:
- There are 314,455 pages with {{speciesbox}}. 25,328 have {{Wikispecies}}, 7,403 have {{Wikispecies-inline}}, 22,989 have {{Commons}}, 4,059 have {{Commons-inline}} and 16,686 have {{Commons category}} (with 28 of them having one of the other commons templates)
- There are 78,809 pages with {{automatic taxobox}}. 5,260 have {{Wikispecies}}, 4,371 have {{Wikispecies-inline}}, 1,955 have {{Commons}}, 1,732 have {{Commons-inline}} and 6,487 have {{Commons category}} (5 with both gallery and category links)
- There are 64,226 pages with {{taxobox}}. 3,415 have {{Wikispecies}}, 563 have {{Wikispecies-inline}}, 2,550 have {{Commons}}, 107 have {{Commons-inline}} and 1,611 have {{Commons category}} (2 with both gallery and category links)
- There are 461,962 pages with {{taxonbar}}. 34,305 have {{Wikispecies}}, 12,474 have {{Wikispecies-inline}}, 27,586 have {{Commons}}, 5,926 have {{Commons-inline}} and 25,121 have {{Commons category}} (39 with both gallery and category links)
- In short, only about 10% of the pages on taxa have the wikimedia link templates. I thought it would be higher. A taxobox or taxonbar solution is easier than adding the wikimedia templates.— Jts1882 | talk 09:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
30 June 2024 use stats update
edit30 June update
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto | # auto added since 30 December 2023 | # manual subtracted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algae | 2280 | 160 | 2440 | 93.4 | 117 | 67 |
Amphibians and Reptiles | 22711 | 199 | 22910 | 99.1 | 187 | 7 |
Animals | 11596 | 915 | 12511 | 92.7 | 429 | 243 |
Arthropods | 11355 | 2719 | 14074 | 80.7 | 581 | 348 |
Beetles | 26514 | 11994 | 38508 | 68.9 | 1783 | 1427 |
Birds | 14405 | 48 | 14453 | 99.7 | 47 | 14 |
Bivalves | 1696 | 28 | 1724 | 98.4 | 22 | 4 |
Cephalopods | 2020 | 558 | 2578 | 78.4 | 11 | 8 |
Dinosaurs | 1624 | 0 | 1624 | 100 | -19 | 0 |
Diptera | 15081 | 1565 | 16646 | 90.6 | 921 | 600 |
Extinction | 796 | 31 | 827 | 96.3 | NA | NA |
Fishes | 25302 | 960 | 26262 | 96.3 | 894 | 711 |
Fungi | 12194 | 3932 | 16126 | 75.6 | 1539 | 1239 |
Gastropods | 32419 | 2972 | 35391 | 91.6 | 4909 | 4252 |
Insects | 61302 | 18450 | 79752 | 76.9 | 3324 | 2269 |
Lepidoptera | 83659 | 14801 | 98460 | 85.0 | 9028 | 8965 |
Mammals | 8401 | 124 | 8525 | 98.5 | 100 | 20 |
Marine life | 8990 | 527 | 9517 | 94.4 | 267 | 145 |
Microbiology | 7675 | 5393 | 13068 | 58.7 | 704 | 637 |
Palaeontology | 15506 | 3198 | 18704 | 82.9 | 727 | 276 |
Plants | 81558 | 188 | 81746 | 99.8 | 1638 | 423 |
Primates | 983 | 0 | 983 | 100 | 4 | 0 |
Protista | 778 | 150 | 928 | 83.8 | 398 | -70 |
Rodents | 3161 | 25 | 3186 | 99.2 | 24 | 3 |
Sharks | 833 | 38 | 871 | 95.6 | 4 | 7 |
Spiders | 10110 | 0 | 10110 | 100 | 70 | 0 |
Tree of Life | 100 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 11 | 6 |
Turtles | 760 | 0 | 760 | 100 | 1 | 0 |
Viruses | 1736 | 55 | 1791 | 96.9 | 14 | 0 |
Total | 407991 | 57001 | 464992 | 87.7 | 24103 | 19707 |
Mammal subprojects with articles tagged for both mammals and subproject:
Project | Auto | Manual | Total taxa | Percentage auto |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cats | 185 | 0 | 185 | 100 |
Cetaceans | 445 | 0 | 445 | 100 |
Dogs | 241 | 0 | 241 | 100 |
Equine | 109 | 0 | 109 | 100 |
Methods and caveats (copy-pasted from previous update)
|
---|
Method: For the most part I use Petscan to search for articles with a talk page banner for a particular Wikiproject and either {{Taxobox}}, or any of {{Automatic taxobox}}+{{Speciesbox}}+({{Infraspeciesbox}} and/or {{Subspeciesbox}} (depending on whether botanical/zoological code is relevant)), and record the results. Example search for algae with automatic taxoboxes (search terms are in the Templates&Links tab in Petscan). For viruses, I search for {{Virusbox}} rather than the other automatic taxobox templates. For plants, I sum the results for the Plants, Banksia, Carnivorous plants and Hypericaceae projects. "Total" is derived from the Template Transclusion Count tool (https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=Speciesbox#bottom e.g. results for Speciesbox), and is not actually sum of the results for individual projects (some articles have talk page banners for multiple Wikiprojects, and would be counted twice if rows were summed). I started compiling these stats in April 2017, and have been updating roughly every six months since December 2017. I've kept my method consistent; perhaps I should have included all of the automatic taxobox templates (Hybridbox, Ichnobox, etc.), but I didn't do so at the beginning, and the other templates aren't used in very many articles. Caveat: The remaining manual taxoboxes in projects with a high percentage of automatic taxoboxes mostly have some kind of "problem". I have periodically reviewed all the manual taxobox articles in projects with less than 207 manual taxoboxes, and chose not to convert them to automatic taxoboxes at that time (however, it has been awhile since my last review, so there probably a few recently included articles I haven't reviewed). "Problems" may include:
|
I've added WikiProject Extinction to the table this time. WikiProject Protista continues to have tags added to existing articles, with a net increase in the number of tagged articles with a manual taxobox. WikiProject Dinosaurs recently merged a bunch of largely redundant articles for nodes in a cladogram, resulting in a net decrease in the number of articles tagged for that project. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing these updates. Good to see progress. Did you include {{WikiProject Cacti}} in with the Plants totals? It doesn't look like that template automatically adds it to the parent WP like the other plants subprojects. awkwafaba (📥) 19:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Awkwafaba:, I did not include WikiProject Cacti in the totals. However, for the past several years, I've been running the "Taxon pages not tagged in WP ToL clade projects" query on your user page to ensure all taxobox articles are tagged for a project immediately before I start compiling an update of these numbers (and in general I run your query every couple of weeks, but haven't made it a priority to tag redirects). I did pick up several cacti articles and added WikiProject Plants tags before I started this update. None of the plant subprojects get picked up in a Petscan search for {{WikiProject Plants}}, so I have always done a separate search for Banksia/Carnivorous plants/Hypericaceae and added those results to the results for Plants when presenting these numbers (the other 3 subprojects aside from Cacti do contribute to the numbers reported in the assessment table for WikiProject Plants). Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)