Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage/Archive 1

Full Latin name

I think that the link to the taxon should be to the full Latin name, e.g. Animalia, not Animalia. The reason for the new taxobox format with Latin words in templates is so that a taxobox can be copied from one language wiki to another without having to translate rank names. We shouldn't have to translate taxon names either, and some languages don't have the word "animal" or "chordate" or "insect". -phma 16:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's true, but copying between wikipediae is less important than moving about within them, and using real article names lets people know exactly where a link goes to. Blind copy-and-paste isn't that good an idea in general, since many taxoboxes include common names - for instance red algae was added to a Spanish article. And the taxon names are listed either way, so they aren't hard to fall back on. I don't think the English links create enough trouble that we should stop using them. Especially not while we have things like taxobox_regnum_entry, which should be larger concerns. Josh 23:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subdivisions

I'd like us to be more definite about what to do when the number of group members gets large, namely to move the member list into text when there are more than about 20 list entries (whether subtaxa or informational entries), and into a separate article titled "list of X species/genera/subgroups" when there are more than about 100 or so. In general I think this reflects what happens already, it would just be useful for everybody not to reinvent the concept. Stan 16:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, these long lists don't belong in the taxobox, and even having them in the text of the article could be avoided. But what should an article containing the list be called? For example, the giant list (in the text) of Mammal concentrates on families. I think a good name for that list in its own article would be "List of families in Mammalia". --Yath 22:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, or "List of mammal families". I don't have a strong opinion on wording; sometimes "X Y" sounds better, sometimes "Y in X". Stan 00:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unranked groups

I created Template:Taxobox unranked entry for unranked classifications like Catarrhini. Comments? Gdr 14:04, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea. Nice work on this page, by the way. --Yath 02:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Problem with a taxobox

On nl:Patas-aap we use the current version of the en:Taxobox. The position of this taxobox is completely wrong. Can some please help us out and inform us to what is wrong ?? Thanks, GerardM 21:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article got put at the top of the table, since the Taxobox_end tag was missing. I've fixed it. Josh

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage#Overview

I'd like to suggest adding:

5. For clarity on the edit pages, leave one blank line below the {{Taxobox_end}} line, and the start of the main text.

Like this:

{{Taxobox_genus_entry | taxon = '''''Abies'''''}}
{{Taxobox_end_placement}}
{{Taxobox_section_subdivision | color = lightgreen | plural_taxon = }}
See text.
{{Taxobox_end}}

Firs (Abies) are a genus of between 45-55 species .....

This will help stop accidental edits in the wrong place, by making the end of the box much more visible. - MPF 14:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This should be standard not just for taxoboxes, but for all infoboxes and templates coming at the startof an article, perhaps even regardless of placement within an article. - UtherSRG 15:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Conservation status: "Fossil" is bad

According to the the possibilities listed here, nothing is appropriate for Homo floresiensis. This species is not "only known from the fossil records" (quoted from Conservation status); nor is its extinction "within recent history"; nor is there anything to say about conservation in the text. It has probably been extinct for 12000 years -- pretty straightforward, but there is no category for it.

I suspect that "Fossil" is based on a misconception -- that the records of prehistoric speciess like this one are always fossils. In fact, this is false; and there are slightly incorrect taxoboxes (such as Homo neanderthalensis) that say "Fossil" when some specimens are not fossils.

I suggest replacing "Fossil" with "Prehistoric". This is what I've done in the taxobox on Homo floresiensis; please take a look.

-- Toby Bartels 02:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the new template. Nice catch! - UtherSRG 03:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should "Fossil" be deleted completely, and replaced with prehistoric. That requires replacing all of the StatusFossil with StatusPrehistoric, but is probably worth doing. Fossils can be mentioned in the main article, rather than in extinction. Existence of fossils does not prove extinction. We now allow prehistoric extinction, which could overlap with fossil extinction. Then there are two categories of extinct--with a date and prehistoric. What happens if something is extinct without a clear date of extinction?Nereocystis 18:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC).

A redirect will be enough, since we can redirect templates. Circeus 19:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

If we want to discourage the use of "StatusFossil" in the future, then it should be noted in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage#Conservation_status. Nereocystis 19:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the distinction between "Prehistoric" and "Fossil" is warranted. As it is (and I expanded the "Conservation Status" explanatory page to reflect this - we do not have an article on "subfossil" and I won't have the time to do one, so if someone can help out it would be highly appreciated), "Prehistoric" denotes extinction of a form between fossilization and Western exploratory contact. Admittedly, "fossilization" indeed is not a uniform date, as is "Western contact" - but the further rather conveniently squats around the Tertiary-Quarternary border and as for the latter, generally the late 15th century is a rule of thumb - Columbus' discovery of the Americas or the extinction of the dodo are two significant dates that fall in that period. Also, the human settlement of Polynesia and the subsequent mass extinction was complete by then.

Thus, "Fossil" would in practice denote Tertiary or earlier extinctions, while "Prehistoric" would denote Quarternary extinctions before Western contact. This is important, because in the case of "Prehistoric" extinction events, an anthropogenic contribution could be evaluated as the Late Quarternary/Holocene is contemporary with the beginning of significant human impact on the environment on a global scale, while localized human alteration of fauna and environment has been present since the mid-late Quarternary (cf. megafaunal extinctions). Also, "Prehistoric" extinctions are open to analysis by molecular biology, while "Fossil" ones are generally not (not even amber fossils are well enough preserved to yield significant information by molecular techniques, and it is not likely that this will change anytime soon due to the degraded state of DNA, proteins etc.)

As it is, the explanation page makes it clear that the distinction between "Prehistoric" and "Fossil" is a somewhat arbitrary one and used for Wikipedia purposes only, not as a scientific classification. Merging the two would probably cause more bad than good, as the Polynesian extinctions, for example (which are extremely significant from taxonomic and biodiversity aspects) or the megafaunal extinctions (which are significant for analysis of early Homo sapiens' and/or changing climate conditions' ecological impact would be lumped with dinosaur extinctions, which were largely part of general evolution (most dinosaur-era species known have a rather wide distribution and are continental species, rendering extinction by anything but evolutionary displacement unlikely). The only problem of sorts that I have with this classification is the term "Prehistoric", which is too ambiguous, but for the lack of a better alternative, I rest my case.

Dysmorodrepanis 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Extinction status

It took me quite some while to find out what the † meant against the various species in Homo (genus): should there not be some more obvious rubric to explain this to a casual browser? Or have I missed something really obvious? (Oh, and the HTML entity † does just fine, you don't need to memorise the numeric version.) --Phil | Talk 06:53, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I wish there was. I attempted to find a solution to this in parellel to the removal of the dagger & asterix used as birth & death indicators in the various people lists. The best we have is putting something in parenthesis and explicitly labelling it "extinct" in the listings. (See Cephalopoda, et al) - UtherSRG 14:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible to put a link behind the dagger like this: † or so? Sebastian 22:34, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Obviously you prove the possibility (grins), but I will say I find the use of the dagger offensive. It's origins are in religion, and I am extremely uncomfortable with reliigous symbology being used (perhaps unknowingly) for other uses. - UtherSRG 22:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Uh - oh, next thing, you'll be stating that there's such a thing as "evolution"! Seriously, though. If this is a commonly used symbol, just regard it as a "dagger" - a tool for extinction, rather than a cross, a tool for salvation. :-]

LOL! Hardly! *grins* As I mentioned above, the dagger and asterix have been removed from the lists of people for the reason of religiosity. This was done before my input, but I participated and agreed with the switch to using "b." and "d." in the lists. The use of the dagger to indicate extinction is an extension of the use to indicate death. For the sae reasons, it should be deprecated. The typical replacement is "(extinct)", although I suppose "(e.)" or "e." may also work, depending on the placement. (Not to mention {{StatusExtinct}}.) - UtherSRG 00:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

What's commonly used in biology? If the dagger isn't, then I'd vote for "(extinct)", which is clear without an explanation. Sebastian 08:16, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

We're lucky on this.... at least in zoology there doesn't seem to be consensus. I've seen the dagger, I've seen some form of "(extinct)", and I've seen nothing (presumably because taxa as ranks don't go extinct, only the creatures represented by those taxa go extinct). - UtherSRG 09:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Examples need sample entries

Taxobox_section_binomial_parens, for example, lists Genus1 and Genus2, but it doesn't say which one should be listed where. Should the original genus be listed here, or should it be the current genus?

All the items in a taxobox, including the footer, should be the current (so in this case Genus2). This template puts the authority (name and date) in parenthesis. - UtherSRG 21:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This description of what to do with genus2 (which is nothing, I guess) needs to be in the main article.

Template:Taxobox_section_binomial_botany author question

The description for Template:Taxobox_section_binomial_botany says

Botanical references omit the date, and only the first letter of the author's last name is used.

I suspect that this should read

the first letter of the author's first name

which provides more information than the first letter of the author's last name. I'm not confident enough of the information to change it myself.

You are incorrect. For instance, Carolus Linnaeus is shown on botanical authority simply as L. - UtherSRG 21:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following sentence needs to be changed a bit. Most botanical authors do use more than the first letter of the author's last name, of course. This sentence suggests that the first letter is always used. Perhaps the word 'sometimes' can be added.

(Botanical references omit the date, and only the first letter of the author's last name is used.)

I've come in on this a bit late having not seen it to now, but for clarification - botanists' names are abbreviated to a published index of standardised botanical author abbreviations, so that everyone uses the same abbreviation for the same botanist. Carolus Linnaeus is the only one abbreviated to a single letter (L.); generally the older the botanist, the more abbreviated they were, the next most being Augustin Pyrame de Candolle, abbreviated to DC. (the only botanist apart from Linnaeus completely initialised). For some other examples, Friedrich Schlechter is Schlechter, Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal is Schltdl., George Engelmann is Engelm., while more recent authors tend to be left with longer abbreviations, e.g. Frank G. Hawksworth is F. G. Hawksworth (mainly because by modern times, the chances are there's already been another botanist with the same surname before!). I am (slowly!) adding the standard abbreviations as redirects to the relevant botanist - MPF 23:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This description is much better than what is written on the project page for Template:Taxobox_section_binomial_botany, which suggests that all botanists use a single letter for their name. Could someone who understands the issues rewrite this section so that it makes sense, yet is still short enough? Nereocystis 07:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Syntax update

Now that MediaWiki supports wikitax in templates, isn't it about time we ugraded the Taxoboxes. Here is a demonstration:

{{Taxobox_begin/new | color = pink | name = Coyote}}
{{Taxobox_image/new | image = [[image:Coyote portrait.jpg|200px|Coyote]] | caption = Coyote}}
{{Taxobox_begin_placement/new | color = pink}}
{{Taxobox_regnum_entry/new | taxon = [[Animal]]ia}}
{{Taxobox_phylum_entry/new | taxon = [[Chordate|Chordata]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry/new | taxon = [[mammal|Mammalia]]}}
{{Taxobox_ordo_entry/new | taxon = [[Carnivora]]}}
{{Taxobox_familia_entry/new | taxon = [[Canidae]]}}
{{Taxobox_genus_entry/new | taxon = ''[[Canis]]''}}
{{Taxobox_species_entry/new | taxon = '''''C. latrans'''''}}
{{Taxobox_end_placement/new}}
{{Taxobox_section_binomial/new | color = pink | binomial_name = Canis latrans
| author = [[Thomas Say|Say]] | date = [[1823]]}}
{{Taxobox_end/new}}

I'm trying to see what's different between that and the existing templates. Could you elaborate please? - UtherSRG 23:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the source, I believe that the difference is that the {| ... |} syntax is being used instead of the <table> ... </table> syntax. – ABCD 02:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I'm the initial author of the taxobox templates, and since I know HTML but can't figure out how to make wikitables work, I used HTML. If someone wants to replace all the templates' source code with wikitable code, they should feel free to be bold and do it. IMO, the underlying code doesn't matter as much as the display format. (However, I probably won't edit the template code if it is replaced with wikitable code.) - UtherSRG 03:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The other change is the use of class="toccolours" which uses the in-house style for formatting infoboxes. But if there are no objections... ed g2s • talk 04:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no objections. 'Cos everyone who I've had previous discussion about taxobox formats knows I'd prefer we didn't have wikicode 'cos I find it so incomprehensible. I will stop counting myself as someone who works with the taxotemplates if they are coded in wikicode. I hate to make this an issue. I know that HTML is deprecated in favor of wikisyntax. Yet no one has been able to show me a benefit of wikisyntax that I've been able to counter by saying the same about HTML. And I hate that I sound like a petulent child when this issue comes up. - UtherSRG 04:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I used to prefer HTML, but I have realised that wikitax really is better. For a start it will always produce valid xhtml (people get lazy and don't terminate their <td>'s etc.). Most importantly it looks much neater in the edit box, and most of the text you see is the contents of the table, so for many people editing wikipedia who don't know html - it's much less confusing. I think when you've seen some of the horrible messes of html that I've seen here (capitalised tags, random indents, unterminated block elements) you'd agree that the short and unobstrusive {|'s |-'s and |'s are much better for wikipedia articles. ed g2s • talk 20:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, I can match you point for point of the evils of wikisyntax vs HTML. Closing <td> tags is not needed 'cos wiki will insert them as needed when creating xhtml. Wikitax takes up more lines in the edit box, making it harder to have reasonable context to what you are editing. Likewise, HTML is used in more than just the wiki arena, so folkswho have coded in it will be familiar with it, instead of having to learn Yet Another Formatting Language. In addition, one can play with the HTML code in their browser editor and get it right before inputing the result into the wiki edit box. HTML tags have names that mean something (and are therefor less confusing) instead of being a mish-mash of arcane symbols that are all very similar (and are therefor more confusing). - UtherSRG 21:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Auto-closing td's is an ugly hack, and an unecessary drain on the parser. Wikitax can be put on a single line, compare:

<table>
<tr>
<td>Denmark</td>
<td>'''7'''</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Senegal</td>
<td>'''5'''</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Uruguay</td>
<td>'''2'''</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>France</td>
<td>'''1'''</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>3</td>
</tr>
</table>

with

{|
|Denmark
|'''7'''||3||2||1||0||5||2
|-
|Senegal
|'''5'''||3||1||2||0||5||4
|-
|Uruguay
|'''2'''||3||0||2||1||4||5
|-
|France
|'''1'''||3||0||1||2||0||3
|}

the latter is far more concise (characters and lines) and understandable, there is much less chance of a mistace being made. What's more if you can udnerstand the first the one you should have no problem with the second one. If you need to test your code first, MediaWiki is as browser editor, just press show preview. You don't need tags that mean something just to remember them, there's only five of them anyway. <table>, <caption>, <tr>, <th>, <td> are hardly much easier to remember than {|, |+, |-, !, |. Also HTML tags are specific to web pages. Everything in Wikipedia should be marked up in its own language. Parsers are then written to convert into which medium is desired (HTML, PDF etc.) In an ideal world all layout would be done in wikitax, and all styling in CSS. Having HTML in your "source text" makes life very difficult when you want to output to any other format. HTML is continually changing, note that xhtml requires that you terminate br tags (<br />). This has left large numbers of pages on wikipedia outputting non-valid xhtml. Wikipedia does not store files in html and this is for a very good reason. ed g2s • talk 22:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like multiple lines to me. As far as width is concerned, TAXOBOX tables only have two data elements per row, and those elements are significantly larger than the tags which separate them. HTML tags tell me what they do. I do not know a |- from a |+ without looking it up in a help page. Thank you for trying to convert me to your religion. I'm fine with my own. If you want to change the source code for the taxotemplates, be my guest, but I will no longer edit or maintain them if they are in wikisyntax. - UtherSRG 00:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a bit late getting into this discussion, but the way the WikiSyntax inserts an extra <p><br></p> (doesn't even / the br!) at the top of the box, and in turn pushing the rest of the article down (see #Extraneous space below), gets on my nerves. Would it break things too terribly to just do the Template:Taxobox begin in HTML to avoid that?

One thing that seems to be getting overlooked in the general discussion here, is that whether it's done in WikiSyntax or HTML, it's not going to be edited often or by the casual user; they'll just be using the {{Taxobox...}} either way, with no idea whether it's going through a <table> or a {| first. So how steep the learning curve is either way isn't a significant factor. - John Owens (talk) 01:47, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Style

With the advent of wikisyntax to our taxobox templates comes the decision on whether to maintain the style of the default table style (class not set), to use the default table of contents style (class="toccolours"), or to create a new style based in each skin (class="taxcolours" perhaps). Let's discuss (since Ed and I have already had enough fun for the day with our private little edit war). If I understand correctly, "toccolours" will look different in different skins, as would any proposed "taxcolours". - UtherSRG 21:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC) Correction: With no forced style, the background color will change. Everything else stays the same, regardless of skin. - UtherSRG 21:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

? Black border
Coyote
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae Genus: Canis Species: C. latrans
Binomial name
Canis latrans Say, 1823

Every element on a page (image box, table of contents, category box, side bar boxes, page frame) uses the default light grey colouring scheme (as in "toccolours"). The black outlined box looks out of place, as does the image which isn't double framed, like every other thumbed image on wikipedia. ed g2s • talk 13:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ugh! The grey border look terrible next to the pink we've chosen for animal. Keep pushing for htisall you want, Ed. I don't like it and will continue to push for the staus quo. - UtherSRG 14:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you represent the status quo? I would've thought the tens of thousands of infoboxes that use toccolours, and the default Wikipedia skin, is the status quo. And what about the hundreds of people who voted on meta for the styling of image boxes? ed g2s • talk 17:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An alternative is to have cellpadding like Mars. ed g2s • talk 17:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you realize I'm talking about taxobox status quo, Ed. And looking at Wikipedia:Infobox, I see that there is no status quo on what box style is to be used. Some have black borders, some have grey, some have thin borders, some have thicker ones. So what status quo are *you* talking about? - UtherSRG 21:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The default Wikipedia skin, used on more than half a million pages. There is not a single element in the stylesheet that defines black borders, and for a good reason, they look out of place amongst hundreds of grey ones. ed g2s • talk 21:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weird domains

Domains

Eukaryota	#e0d0b0
Prokaryota	gray
Virus	violet

So, except for Eukaryota, these aren't really domains. Since both of the first two are broken down completely into kingdoms, having colors for them impacts at most two or three pages, and isn't really that important. A standard for viruses might be more so. However, at the moment virus taxoboxes tend to be caught up in using the non-existent domain, and I'm not sure what do with them. Does anyone more familiar with virology how they're usually handled? Josh

Extraneous space

I just updated Common Moorhen to use the taxobox syntax. I noticed that the updated article has extraneous vertical space at the top, as compared to the immediately preceding revision (you may have to edit and preview that page to see the difference, which would otherwise be partially obscured by the navigation links for moving between article revisions). I can't figure out what I did wrong; or is this a common problem with taxoboxes? --MarkSweep 01:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a very common problem. You can get rid of it by taking out the paragraph break after the box - it looks like Uther did on your page - but it still plagues many pages. It was caused by the switch to wikitable format, and I'd like to suggest we go back to HTML tables as a result. Josh

Yes, I thought it would go away by removing the extra blank line. However, compare Common Moorhen with Gruiformes, which still uses HTML table syntax. The spacing at the top of Common Moorhen is clearly irregular. Strange, that. --MarkSweep 06:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

template linking

in the template, the words kingdom, class, etc. are not linked to. should they be? - Omegatron

Nope. Way early on in taxobox history they were, but we moved away from that. However, there are plenty of taxoboxes out there that need to be updated to the current format. - UtherSRG 20:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to "update" an older style box to the newer template style, but noticed the links had been removed. Who decided to remove them? - Omegatron 15:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

As with most such changes, it was a group decision. You can find the dialogue someplace in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life archives.... - UtherSRG 16:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

authority revisited

For a while now I've had the primate and cephalopod taxoboxes augmeted to show authority on each line that is definitive for that box - ie, there is no link for that entry and the entry is bold. (For examples, see primates and tarsier.) I'm mostly happy with this. My concern comes from a mistake I made when I crafted the original authority entries for the taxobox templates. Instead of one entry for author and one for date, there should be a single entry for authority. This entry could take any form (author and date, a & d in parens, multiple authors and a date, botanical entry). Then, instead of having multiple authority templates for the binomial/trinomial portion, the simplified authority template could follow the current simple binomial/trinomial template. (See Goeldi's Marmoset.) Any thoughts? I have a request for a 'bot maker to help me out in making all of the conversions, but I haven't had any bites. - UtherSRG 15:40, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do would be to change taxobox_section_binomial to taxobox_section_binomial_zoology. That would only take a simple search-and-replace bot, someone must have one of those. Then a new taxobox_section_binomial could even be phased in manually. Josh (by the way, the ciliates and some other protists also show authorities).

Synonyms?

Is there any practical way to indicate really common synonyms? --Circeus 01:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Define really common. Where would you propose putting them in to taxobox? How would this be better than talking about synonyms in the text. - UtherSRG 01:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed classification, recent changes, mostly. I ran into this when doing Mouse-eared hawkweed, whose latin name varies in scientific publications between Hieracium pilosella and Pilosella officinarum. I was thinking just under the taxon name (Synonym(s), in italic), without a background color.--Circeus 02:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pick one that's either slightly more common or that is likely to be more common a year from now. Explain the situation in the text. Synonyms require an explanation, othrwise the lay person will think that they can be used interchageably. - UtherSRG 02:37, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

In botany, synonyms abound, but there is only one ACCEPTED name. If we were to give synonyms for all species, we would become a database such as IPNI or the Orchid checklist at Kew]. As to Mouse-eared Hawkweed, the accepted name is Hieracium pilosella. Let's stick to the accepted names and only mention synonyms when really necessary. JoJan 19:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Complete classification

I recently inserted some minor ranks, which User:UtherSRG deleted. After reading section 2.6 I now see that this is in accordance with the standard. UtherSRG politely wrote "please no" in his edit, but that didn't tell me the reason. If you do similar reverts in the future, you may want to include a link to the appropriate section.

Of course I will respect whatever has been decided as a standard, but I would like to weigh in my opinion, which is not that of a biologist, but that a normal reader and occasional editor.

The reason why I inserted the minor ranks was the statement "Mollusks are triploblastic protostomes", which made me curious what protostomes are. So I learned to my amazement that I am closer related to a sea cucumber than to a squid. This is the sort of information I expect to appear in a taxobox, so I went on to insert it in a couple more pages.

However, I agree with removing the minor ranks that are not immediately above the rank of the wikipedia article, as UtherSRG did in Cephalopods. I also agree with not relying too much on information that is disputed and can change rapidly.

How about if the standard said: "Include always and only the minor rank that directly contains the article?" Sebastian 22:36, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summaries aren't a good place to put discussions, so thanks for bringing it up here. Your insertions are quite fine for Mollusk, particularly and especilly because of the statement you call out. You also cal out the reasons for my reversion quite nicely. I like your proposal, although perhaps we can soften it a bit. "always and only" is a bit too rigid. Sometimes some additional levels will be good, but too many will just be overload. UtherSRG 22:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me! Sebastian 23:52, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Chronostratigraphic period

Something really interesting to add to the taxobox (not only for fossils, but for any eukaryote taxon) is temporal distribution. A problem could be the consequential distinction between etages (e.g. Lutetian,...), epochs (e.g. Barremian, Eocene,...) and periods (e.g. Permian). See Geologic timescale. I am really clueless on editing the taxobox myself, that's why I ask it here. Phlebas 16:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why i think the multiple template structure for taxoboxes sucks

i frequently add images from commons to wikipedias i can't read

i do this by following interwiki links from commons to the wikipedias and then if there is no image adding one.

however if i come accross a taxobox built from multiple templates i have to either put the image outside the taxobox (which looks messy) of figure out wtf they called the template to insert an image in the taxobox structure. single template taxoboxes with named parameters tend to clearly show which permaters are not specified and taxoboxes built from raw markup are easy to edit regarless of the language of the text in them.

furthermore use of templates in this way is a VERY BAD thing from a database point of view. (every template you use means an extra query when rendering a page)

It isn't a very good system, I'll agree. The problem is that taxoboxes need to be flexible, so at the moment, the only alternative to multiple templates would be scores of customized single templates, which is not reasonable. A change to the software is required before we can change. Josh

Huh? Are you saying it's hard to get to the images? You can simply click on them from the article view to find out what images are being used, you know. grendel|khan 19:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Proposal: dual colors

The French taxoboxes use differing colors for the main title and the section titles (Classification, name). How about we implement this in english to? (the background colors are too ugly, though.). Circeus 14:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Image size?

Is there a preferred image size? The examples list 200px, 250px, and 270px. Can there at least be a recommended size so that the infobox doesn't get grotesquely stretched out of shape? grendel|khan 19:38, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I standardize at 200px for species and 250px for higher taxa. Circeus 19:52, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

generally i size the image by trial and error so it has no white borders beside it (which i think look bloody ugly) but doesn't streth the taxobox much. Occasionally i will crop an image to give it an aspect ratio more suited to the taxobox its in. Plugwash 23:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Plugwash. I also try to avoid white borders. I use sizes between 200px and 250px, depending on the taxobox and the information in the picture. If necessary, I edit the picture in Photoshop, as to obtain a perfect picture showing the requested information. JoJan 11:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Conservation classifications

Hello everyone. Could anyone please provide a guideline for non-biologists like me who occasinally write an article about a species on how to translate CITES conservation labels to the ones available here? I'm currently struggling to put together my first taxobox and I've plumped for 'vulnerable' to translate CITES 'R' (rare) rating... The CITES / UNEP-WCMC database is a great place for this info, but I may be way off in my choice of mini-template!

Many thanks, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 18:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check out http://www.redlist.org, the IUCN Redlist. It's the model we used in creating the various tags. What species are you working on? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I did check there, but my genus (Charonia) isn't listed (nor the best known species, C. tritonis). I'm about to publish the first draft of the article at Triton (mollusk), so give me a couple of mins and that link will turn blue. I'm no biologist; I just have a fondness for this species from when I was introduced to one as a child and I was sorry to find it missing from wikipedia :-) I'll be glad if anyone can correct my taxobox or the article content (it's based on what I've been able to sift from web browsing, so unreferenced). ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 20:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"How to read a taxobox" link

The link (?) to How to read a taxobox is throwing off the centering of the taxoboxes and also cluttering them up. I recommend that it be moved somewhere else, or even deleted in the meantime. At present I haven't figured out a better way to link it. --Yath 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It used to be placed using the style position: absolute; right: 0.2em; top: 0.1em which didn't affect the centering of the title. However, User:Sperling changed it to float:right; padding:0 .5em 0 2em with the comment "'?' markup was broken, it was displayed outside the box in standards compliant browsers like Firefox or Opera". Now, if I understand the relevant section of the CSS 2.1 standard correctly, it is in fact Firefox and Opera which are rendering this style wrongly. But that's moot because the aim is get it right for as many browsers as we can. Gdr 17:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In that version, Gecko browsers displayed the ? in the upper right-hand corner of the entire page and not inside the taxobox. --Yath 17:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; whereas the CSS spec says, "[For position:absolute, the top/left/bottom/right] properties specify offsets with respect to the box's containing block", and if I understand correctly, the table cell is the containing block in this instance. Maybe placing the ? within another block element would trick Gecko into doing the right thing? Gdr 17:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to find somewhere to comment on the taxobox '?' link to "How to read a taxobox", and I hope this is the right place. The page explaining a taxobox is very clear and helpful, even though I knew that the taxobox was obviously showing the taxonomy. I just found the random '?' to be a bit confusing. It is not clear what it is, and you have to click on it, or hover the mouse cursor over it, to find out what it is. Would it not be better to have the link as a superscript note to the Scientific classification link in the taxobox? This would also solve the problem you are discussing above. Or to have a heading for the taxoboxes saying what they are, and to have the link there instead? Essentially, I am saying that I think the '?' link is unecessary and distracting to those who know what a taxobox is, and it is mysterious and confusing (never seen a '?' sign used this way before in wikipedia) to those who might think of clicking on it. 194.200.237.219 10:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"wiki standard" infobox style

So Cantus keeps trying to impose gray borders in taxoboxes, claiming "wiki standard". I thought that was being discussed at Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation for a while but then was abandoned. So where is this standard coming from? Anyone know? Cantus isn't talking much lately. --Yath 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Native Flora

I've just been looking at the recient cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Flora_by_countries it seems to me that some sort of template system could be used to list the native plants of a country. So we could have {{flora|China}} for plants in China. These could link into an apropriate set of catagories as a part of Category:Flora by country. Thoughs? --Pfafrich 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of "subdivision" in botanical taxoboxes

I first noticed this in the taxobox for Asteraceae: "subdivisions" is being used in an apparently colloquial but confusing way to denote groupings within the family. As this term has a precise meaning as a specific taxonomic rank above the level of family in botanical nomenclature (a "division" is equivalent to a "phylum", and "subdivision" to "subphylum") I would suggest finding another term to use. MrDarwin 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Subfamilies", referring to the three main groupings. I hope this is correct; the taxonomy in the taxobox does not agree with the text: "The numerous genera are divided into about 13 tribes. Only one of these, Lactuceae, is considered distinct enough to be a subfamily (subfamily Cichorioideae); the remainer, which are mostly overlapping, are put in the subfamily Asteroideae (Wagner, Herbst, and Sohmer, 1990)." Someone who really knows what he's doing should take a look. Eugene van der Pijll 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

species groups, subgroups and complexes

In some branches of the taxonomy, unoffcial ranking such as species group, species subgroup and species complex are used to wade through the large number of species in the genus (such as Drosophila). Would it be possibe to add those levels to the taxobox? --KimvdLinde 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that these groups are normaly given names like "Drosophila virilis species group". How would you expect them to appear in the taxobox? Some possibilities are:

1. Species group: Drosophila virilis species group
2. Species group: D. virilis species group
3. Species group: D. virilis group
4. Species group: D. virilis gr
5. Species group: D. virilis

The first is probably too wide to fit. The first and second repeat "species group" which seems rather odd to me. The last is potentially confusing with the species itself. Gdr 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The extended way is indeed Species group: "Drosophila virilis species group", but in short it goes as "virilis group". The above level already indicated that you are at the genus Drosophila and species is redundant. I think adding the categorisering as group (melanogaster group), subgroup (melanogaster subgroup) and complex (melanogaster complex) will reduce confusion of the D. melanogaster species group from D. melanogaster.--KimvdLinde 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I added these parameters to the template:

| species_group
| species_group_authority
| species_subgroup
| species_subgroup_authority
| species_complex
| species_complex_authority

It's up to you how you format the name in the table: if "melanogaster complex" is the usual approach then that's fine. However, an article on the complex ought, I think, to be given the full name, i.e. "Drosophilia melanogaster species complex" since it's not impossible that some other genus has a species with the epithet melanogaster. Gdr 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Gdr, thanks. This facilitates my project considerably. I have made a box at a test page User:KimvdLinde/Drosophila melanogaster with a link to the page dealing with the subgroup User:KimvdLinde/Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup. --KimvdLinde 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with your fruit fly pages. Gdr 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alliance

The rank "Alliance" doesn't show up with the Gdrbot in botanical taxoboxes. See Encyclia. Alliance is a rank under subtribe, used especially in orchid taxoboxes. JoJan 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I added alliance and alliance_authority to the template. Gdr 19:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Alliance" is not a recognized botanical rank under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Its modern usage, as with orchids, is strictly casual and it means approximately the same as "group". MrDarwin 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but taxoboxes have never been restricted to formal ranks. Gdr 15:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidatus template

Can some who is knowledgeable please add a space to the candidadus taxobox template. See Phytoplasma for the problem. Onco_p53 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a known bug where spaces sometimes get lost. If you use   it displays the proper results. I made this update to the linked page and also abbreviated the entries so that it doesn't wrap on every line. --CBDunkerson 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been out of the loop for a while (nearly finished my thesis). Onco_p53 06:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Type genus

In my opinion it would be a good idea to include a type genus template into taxoboxes of families. The only type template available at this moment is the template type species. JoJan 13:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a type genus entry just above type species. Same usage. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that the "type" params are used incorrectly more often than not (the ICZN-advocated usage is not intuitive). It would be good to add an annotation to the taxobox template asking users to look up Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Type_Species and then deciding whether they'll be able to use the param or not. Type genera is rather easy thanks to Nomenclator, but type species is sheer hell (I have better-than-average access to taxonomic literature, and even I find it hard to come up with the information). Dysmorodrepanis 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

unnamed species

Southern Bobtail Squid has been put in a genus but has not yet received a species name. Is it appropriate to have a taxo-box or not, and if so how should it look? The bellman 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait until a species has been described and a name published before we add a taxonomy to the article. (Compare Kinabalu giant earthworm and Kinabalu giant red leech, two invertebrates that I believe are still undescribed.) Gdr 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Should the taxobox support a link to wikispecies? (This might save some space in articles that use the {{wikispecies}} template.) If so, how? Gdr 20:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Perhaps. I know I've only placed the template on articles so that the template corresponds to the (or each) bold entry in the taxobox. Perhaps putting an indication there, or replacing the bold with a link to the species article? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with replacing the bold format with a wikispecies link. I think it's important that the reader is able to quickly look at the taxobox for aardvark and see that they are dealing with a page that covers Tubulidentata, Orycteropodidae, and Orycteropus simultaneously. If these are linked to wikispecies, they'll say "I wonder what else is in this family" only to find themselves lost in another wikiproject. I think a new section for "familia_wikispecies = Orycteropodidae" that would output "Wikispecies: Orycteropodidae below the "familia_authority =" would be useful though. --Aranae 20:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be one simple link to Wikispecies in the taxobox to the specific class/genus/species or whatever the article is on. The point of Wikispecies is to go far more in depth than Wikipedia, and so it should have every classification category, unlike Wikipedia which ought to only list the important ones. A link in the currently unused taxobox title-text would allow an interested person to go from the general information to the detailed, specific scientific information while keeping the focus of each Wiki. I wrote a bit of code that links to the classification-format Wikispecies page if there is a binomial or trinomial name, and otherwise a Wikispecies link to a page of the name of the Wikipedia page. That common name-format page can then be redirected by the initial editor to the proper classification-format page, which we know already from the Wikipedia information. For examples, I've already done this with the whale and oak taxobox usage examples. This code would replace the simple {{{name}}} towards the start of the template:

{{#if: {{{species|}}} | {{#if: {{{binomial|}}} | [[Wikispecies:{{{binomial}}}|{{{name}}}]] | [[Wikispecies:{{{trinomial}}}|{{{name}}}]] }} | [[Wikispecies:{{{name}}}|{{{name}}}]] }}

Test it out. The few problems is that right now the bi/trinomial names have formatting marks for italics which need to be moved outside the {{{bi/trinomial}}}; it's a widespread problem but a very quick fix. The other problem is with multiple bi/trinomial classifications; a simple fix would be to add a {{{bi/trinomial_2}}} input. It shouldn't be too hard to go back and fix existing taxoboxes and should be very simple when creating new taxoboxes. This, I believe, would help fill the gaps and properly bridge Wikipedia and Wikispecies. RttlesnkeWhiskey 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While your wikicode is probably correct, having the link in the taxobox is not. Links to external sites, including sister projects, should be in the External links section. Sister project links are generally put in a sister links box in that section. (Such as {{Wikispecies}}.) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"The point of Wikispecies is to go far more in depth than Wikipedia" - the "point" of Wikispecies is also that its systematics and taxonomy do not generally get updated and thus are already very obsolete in many cases. Check out Corvida for example; this has been known to be wrong since 2002. Wikipedia at least (for the time being ;) ) acknowledges this fact. What's the use of linking information that is wrong? Dysmorodrepanis 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

link to year in science

I've been thinking for a little while now that our taxobox year links should be links to that year in science and not just to the year itself. Or perhaps expanding the year in science articles to include references to the publication the authority is derived from. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, some folks have been removing the links to years in taxoboxes, feeling they are complying with WP:DATE. I disagree on this matter, but if we link to "year in science" or some other such article, we will be compliant. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in line with WP:DATE. What is the value of linking years to either the year itself, or to the "year in science" equivalent? I think links should add to the article, and years are just too general. KimvdLinde 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a year link to other species discovered in that year might be somewhat useful/illustrative. As it is, year links to an overall year are entirely too broad and really don't add anything except unnecessary visual link clutter. --Cyde Weys 19:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a big issue either way, but in this case I'm inclined to leave the year links in. Often a whole slew of taxon identifications by a particular authority all take place in the same year... when they released a particular book with various findings. Since those texts are significant to the history of taxonomy they ought to be present in the list of events for the year (or the 'year in science')... having the year link there makes it easier to check whether the information is already present. Alternatively we could link to an article on the text in question (if it has an article). --CBDunkerson 19:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with just ordinary years is that the signal-to-noise ratio is poor. They "cry wolf" so often that they can no longer function like other links do. Some year articles have over 100,000 pages pointing at them. Content in ordinary year articles is clustered randomly across many domains and is almost the opposite of 'relevant'. Reducing overlinking of dates will improve the signal-to-noise ratio and reduce the likelihood that good links will get lost amongst useless ones.

I agree with KimvdLinde, but if people really want it, a link like "year in science" is certainly more focussed. It will be much more inviting to the reader that has learned to ignore the random content of ordinary year articles. The reader must see the difference so it must state the destination "2004 in science" visibly rather than be piped and camouflaged as just another ordinary year link. bobblewik 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't see the point. So Gobius fluviatilis Nardo, 1824 was named and published in the same year as Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say, 1824. What's interesting about this connection? Gdr 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Very little, but perhaps a tad more than the birth of Wilkie Collins. :) Rich Farmbrough 22:43 23 March 2006 (UTC).

I'd tend to agree with linking to year in science, but am not too bothered about it (particularly as I'm dealing mainly with plants, where dates are not given at all in author citations) - MPF 13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the year links add anything at present, year in science is only a slight improvement, and list of all taxa described that year is only a bit better. I think people often fail to realize just how many taxa are described each year. It would be nice if we could automate it somehow so that if a year is linked in a taxobox, that bolded name goes on the list for taxa described that year and links back to the taxon name. It should be arranged taxonomically, though as alphabetical would also be almost useless. --Aranae 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For the amount of work that would take and the very small amount of payoff I guess it isn't worth it. --Cyde Weys 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Useful page

This is a very useful page! I've found several animals and plants that don't have this, so I'm going to add them in. Anyone want to help? Sarah crane 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding which animals and plants don't have a taxobox. Is there a list? Sarah crane 19:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cultivars?

What about cultivars? Two types of vegetables may be the same species, but have different cultivars, and they might have different articles. Should they have different boxes? Sarah crane 13:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Cultivars are not biological species, and it was decided that they shouldn't have a taxobox (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive11#Cultivars.3F and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive13#Cultivars for the discussion).

Instead they should have an {{Infobox Cultivar}}. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cultivar infobox for instructions on how to use it. Gdr 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's great that that already exists! It's not used much though. Sarah crane 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not compulsory to have an infobox on every article. But yes, it needs an enthusiastic editor to find articles to add it to. Gdr 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Status + Fossil Range

I noticed that when using both Conservation Status and Fossil Range arguments, a pretty large gap is present in the taxobox header between these fields. Any way to fix this?Dinoguy2 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Phylogenetic nomenclature

Rank-free taxoboxes must be very easy to make. The linguists have never introduced formal ranks – look what the "language family" section of the info box at Northern Sotho language looks like.

Surely we can simply copy this?!?

This would save us from a lot of splitting and lumping ( = people saying "these shouldn't be two subphyla of the same phylum, they are so different they should be separate phyla, even though I agree with the rest of the world that they are each other's closest relatives" or the opposite) – just like it spares the linguists the decision of whether something should be called "language" or "dialect", at least in most cases.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 13:55 CEST | 2006/4/25 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.130.1.135 (talk • contribs) .

We don't make the decision about whether something is one lump or two. We report on what the leading science says is one lump or two. People are going to be lumpers and splitters no matter how we report the lumping and the splitting. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox needed template

I have been looking for a template to request a taxobox, in this case for the sordes article. I have for the moment used the diagram request and specified that what was needed is a taxobox. Is there a way of requesting a taxobox, is there a template in this case?? --Francisco Valverde 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests like this should go on the talk page, not in the article. You could add Category:Tree of Life cleanup to the talk page, perhaps via the template {{TolCleanup}}. However, I'm not convinced anyone actually looks at these cleanup categories. So in this case you'd probably get a better result by making a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs. It might even be easier to do the research and write it yourself! Gdr 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, taxobox for the sordes... You were right, it was much easier! Thanks anyway. --Francisco Valverde 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservation status of unlisted species

If I consult IUCN's database of threatened species and a species is not listed there, should the taxobox say status unknown, or status secure? Neil916 23:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unknown", surely, unless you have a source for the organism being secure. However, it's probably best not to give the conservation status in the taxobox in this case. Gdr 09:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

range maps

I've been having trouble with some range maps in the taxoboxes, for example the Jervis Bay Tree Frog and Archeys Frog. Can someone have a look at them an let me know whats going on. Thanks.--Tnarg 12345 09:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The range map of Jervis Bay Tree Frog is OK now, by adding range_map_width. But the range map of Archeys Frog resists any likewise attempt. Is it perhaps because the range map.png hasn't been scaled down to 300 x 400 px ? JoJan 13:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I used the same basic map for all the Leiopelma frog, and it works on Hochstetters Frog. Maud Island Frog and Hamiltons Frog so I don't know why it doesn't work on Archeys Frog. Thanks for fixing the Jervis Bay Tree Frog.--Tnarg 12345 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that have a zero alpha channel was the problem. I've uploaded a fix. By the way, you'd get smaller image size for this kind of image if you palettized the colours and minimized the colour table (4 colour/2 bits should be plenty, you just need white, grey, black and transparent). Gdr 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IUCN ref's in taxobox and footnote style

There is an issue with the footnote style and the automated insertion of the IUCN references. I think we should make a footnote in the taxobox linking to that reference, so that it can be added automatically to the <references/> when those are used. I am fine with footnotes in the taxobox, but are others as well? We need to address this question before asking beastie bot to run again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See Australian_Ringneck for an example of how I think it should be. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Siberian Spruce

I found this page while patrolling the Wiki. I was wondering if someone could help with it? I'm not much a plant person thanks. BJK 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anamorphs

We need a way to add anamorphs or teleomorphs for fungi. Many fungi have two different scientific names one for the sexual and one for the asexual stage as historically these have often been identified as different species. This should probably include the ability to link to a separate article as there may be instances where each form has its own page. Maccheek 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the two articles be merged, and the "synonym" section of the taxobox used to show the junior name? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How to determine authority for taxbox?

I created a new article (Orange-belted bumblebee) and am curious how I can determine the binomial naming authority for this species? Is that publicly available somewhere? --MattWright (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Check WP:TOL. It lists several sources for authorities. In this case, I did a Google search for "Bombus ternarius" and came up with this. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! --MattWright (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Does everyone know about ION? --Aranae 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it gives authorities, although it does point to recent papers. If the species is rather new, that would be a way to fidnd the authority - go directly to the publication of the species! But if the species is not new, such as the previously mentioned bee, it is no good. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It does give authorities, it's just not comprehensive. It's particularly poor for older taxa. It also doesn't distinguish very well between aspects of nomenclature such as who elevated a family to family first and who is the actual authority (they may have named it as a tribe or subfamily). ICZN is planning to put together an easily searchable database of descriptions, revisions, etc. and they're potentially using ION as their starting point. --Aranae 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Plant cultivar infoboxes

I wonder if someone with template expertise would be able to modify the Cultivar infoboxes to "wrap around" the picture in the same way that the taxobox does? At the moment there is white space either side of the pictures (at least on my monitor) which makes the infobox much wider than it needs to be.--Melburnian 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

other projects

Why can't the taxobox template include links to the relevant page at Wikicommons and Wikispecies, if applicable? (Like the French one.) Thanks, –Outriggr § 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may want to see the discussion at: #Wikispecies. +A.Ou ^Ȣȣ 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese herbalism

An anonymous user, User:74.129.247.48, has added Chinese herbalism content to taxoboxes in several articles--see Juglans regia, Aralia chinensis, garlic, etc. As far as I know this addition to taxoboxes has not been discussed by other editors, and as added is rather unhelpful. MrDarwin 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted them--they're not taxonomic, so need to be put elsewhere and worked into the text. They are standard comments often included in gardens with scientific collections in China and in the US on the West Coast where traditional Chinese medicine is somewhat familiar--big school in Bay Area, plenty of practitioners and the practice is regulated by the state at least in California. I grew up with a neighborhood Chinese medicine practitioner, and the signs are familiar. There is also plenty of documentation on traditional Chinese medicine so requesting references with them won't be an issue. Nobody point out that I failed to add a source (yet) to my addition to the white mulberry page--go to the local Middle Eastern market or Afghan or Persian store and try some. KP Botany 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I also put a welcome on the talk page, even though it is an IP, and let the user know the information is fine, it's just the problematic location. KP Botany 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unranked

For example, in Carnosauria it is highly desirable to add the unranked (between sub- and infraorder) Tetanurae, because it is commonly used in theropods and at present, the carnosaur is rather uninformative (they're theropods, well, duh. So are ceratosauria. For Carnosauria, it would actually best to add Tetanurae AND Neotetanurea...). But it is not possible. The point in the unranked clade names is not one, but a theoretically unlimited number of clades per step between Linnean ranks. Therefore, it would be good to abolish the qualifier behind "unranked" (i.e. "unranked_ordo" etc ) altogether. This apparently prevents citing an authority, which in phylo-taxo as opposed to Linnean taxonomy is essential because clade names in phylo-taxo can be much more easier redefined entirely than in Linnean taxonomy (where the onomatophore is always contained in a group by definition). Perhaps an arrangement such as unranked1/unranked_authority1, unranked2 and so on is possible? The present system does not adequately reflect the use of unranked groups.

Furthermore, it would be good to use a different style for unranked groups. IONO whether the Mediawiki syntax allows for small caps, but this could be a possible means to denote them (I think it has been sugegsted thus in the literature). In any case, taxonomic authority's names should arguably be done in small caps too (I think the German WP does it like that, which would mean that the syntax allows it). Dysmorodrepanis 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bug

This is of very low importance for improving the encyclopedia, but I thought I'd make a suggestion. Could the sample animal taxobox be something less...creepy crawly? I'm not a biology person, but I do occasionally come across new and random pages in need of a taxobox, and I refer to this page on how to use them properly. And every time I do, I get a shiver. I'm sure it's a great picture for the kind of article I don't seek out (for just that reason), but on a project page it's a little harder to avoid, and there may be other wimps like me who get an unpleasant visceral reaction from it. Go ahead, mock me... — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The handsome Colorado Potato Beetle? Creepy? But all creatures are beautiful (in their own way)... I guess it's easy enough to change on the usage page.. the How to read a taxobox is a bit trickier but it requires updating sometime anyway. Any suggestions for a favourite fluffy creature? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and replaced the taxobox with the one for the Asian Golden Cat. However, I've removed the status info from the taxobox. If the usage pages are going to be updated to include the status, then it should be added back. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Botanical subsection

We currently have the argument zoosubsectio for subsections in zoology, but no equivalent for botanical subsections. I would propose argument subsectio for this purpose. Several botanical genera are divided into subgenera, sections AND subsections, such as Pinus or Panax. Someone please make a modification to the taxobox, or unlock the template page, I can do it myself.Qwertzy2 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. The subdivision should go one level deep, and/or further levels can be expanded in the article text. Can you give an example of how you'd use this other field? —Pengo 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

position of synonym section, type genus

When BOTH the synonyms section AND the subdivisions section appear, the synonym one should be placed on top of the subdivision, and not the other way round.

Debatable. Lists of synonyms can be very long and are marginally useful information except for specialists in most cases, whereas the subdivision section usually contains links. I think I know what you're hinting at (as it currently stands, it is not very "logical" if reading the taxobox in sequence). Dysmorodrepanis 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to add an argument for TYPE GENUS, like the type genus of a family ?Qwertzy2 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See the note I added on why the TYPE section is advanced-use only and requires much knowledge of taxonomy; it is very hard to give the correct information in the correct format in this section without having the original description at hand and that may be fairly hard to come up with. The ICZN quote should illustrate the point; this section might need reworking entirely. Dysmorodrepanis 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Choosing images

So as not to get in an edit war at Golden-breasted Starling we have two pictures vieing for the taxobox:

• 
  Picture #1 by Stavenn
• 
  Picture #2 by Ram-Man

Wikiproject Birds follows the taxobox image guidelines. In this case the first image was used (in the taxobox) to show the bird in it's compact form with it's wings tightened beside itself. The second image (in the taxobox) is used to show off the underside of the bird, given that the name of the bird is Golden-breasted. Picture #1 is very low resolution, but shows off the whole of the bird, albeit in a fashion that shows a lot of jpeg artifacts. Picture #2 shows a much higher resolution and detailed photo (of the golden breast), but without the tail. My question, without getting into an edit war, is what should happen in cases like this? I've been replacing images in cases like this (sometimes with my own pictures, sometimes not) so it's obvious where I feel on this issue. Stavenn has on more than one occaison replaced one of the higher quality pictures in the taxobox with a lower one, for other reasons. Since Wikipedia is not intended to be web-only, it is my understanding that we should *always* strive to use a higher-resolution images suitable for print and so forth. In fact, we have a process for deleting low quality images when alternatives come about. However, since these are not exactly the same pose, we have the problem. I'd like to see some input. Obviously if a higher resolution image of the picture in question exists, then that could be uploaded to solve the issue, but what do we do in general? -- User:Ram-Man 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In this specific case, where only one or two photographs illustrate the article, I would be disinclined to use the imge with the tail cut off for anything other than as a thumbnail to illustrate the chest area within the text, not the taxobox, and only in a longer article, with a section devoted to discussing the breast color of this particular species--it's a problematic photo because of the tail being chopped off. Are there other examples of this question which do not deal with a photo that is problematic for other reasons? KP Botany 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If showing the tail is important, there is this or this picture from the back. Both images are problematic. As you well stated, picture #2 has the problem of being an "awkward" picture. Yet picture #1 is of low resolution and while it shows the tail, it does not do so very well. Is there some standard for why one is better than the other? I gather that you feel a low-quality image trumps an awkward picture. A similar situation occurs at Bald Eagle between this and this. I personally prefer the former, but perhaps after this discussion the latter should be used. I'll see if I can find other examples that fit better to the question. -- RM 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On the bald eagle, the awkward crop really should not be used, the first image on the starling from the back is a beautiful image, while the second one is too dark and out-of-focus. The first one is a rather lovely image of the bird's feathers, and should be included in the article, if it is not. KP Botany 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The "higher resolution image" mentioned is just big size images with less educational value. Some with bad angle, too bright or blurred. Adult plumage (instead of young birds), full image shot, etc that shows bird characters are more encyclopedic. Also, without consideration to other users Ram-man using up to 4 pictures (some duplicates & all his) of the same bird in same article (that limit showing the variety of individuals). (see Steller's Sea-Eagle: persistent changed it to his young bird images + 4 images (before 6), Bald Eagle another his young bird (looking sick too), Blue-bellied Roller another 4 images of same bird, etc. Quoting Ram-man: "we should *always* strive to use a higher-resolution images suitable for print and so forth". How big is the taxobox ? what kind of print are you talking about ? All I see, Ram-man just want to put all his image on taxobox, and to promote or sell his "limited uses" of images (see permission on all his images description) maybe ? --Stavenn 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave personal accusations out of this and focus on issues only. Is the higher resolution images always preferable? No. However, all other things being equal, the higher resolution images should be used.

If the image is of a juvenile plumage, it should be used only in addition to other images of the adult bird, or if it is the only image, and it should be used to illustrate juvenile plumage whenever that is an issue (for example, all seagull articles would be places where juvenile plumage would be important images). Yes, a full image of the bird, in general, should be used, other than when illustrating another particular point.

Whose photographs are used is not important, if one photographer has all of the best ones that otherwise suit the article, they should be used--there is nothing encyclopediac about "everyone gets a turn." This has nothing to do with an encyclopedia--fairness about input. If all other things are equal, then a variety of photographers might be a consideration.

On the Steller's Sea-Eagle article, I do see that the edit summary noted the change out of a juvenile. In this case, in birds, in a taxobox, the adult should be used.

In spite of the wording on the license, it is just GFDL or GNUFL or whatever it is called--this is actually spelled out under the license, that you must use the same license, not a stricter one on any derivative works or other usages. KP Botany 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the Steller's Sea-Eagle article with the recommended changes. Perhaps someone could look over it to make sure I did everything correctly. -- RM 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Many concerns to address, so let me try individually:

First, the Bald Eagle article has undergone extensive editing over the last couple of days in terms of pictures. I moved off a lot of lower resolution images and replaced them with images that were more detailed or better suited to the article. Another editor has adjusted an image since that time for the better as well. I really only have one image on that page, and it is in the taxobox because the detail is more clear than the previous picture. I can't speak to the health of the bird, but I do have a picture of similar quality of a different bird (not uploaded) that could be used instead.

In this case, in the taxobox, it is a wondeful picture of the bird, this one capturing an expression on the bird's face that is rather compelling, although probably the other one is better suited, in general, for taxobox usage. From an artistic standpoint, though, I can see why you would use this image rather than the other one. Still, the image of the full bird is to be preferred, as this is not about the artistry, but the details. KP Botany 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Second, the Blue-bellied Roller article contained a single blurred image that I replaced. If more images were available, those could be added or used to replace existing images as appropriate. I can hardly be faulted for adding images.

Yes, blurred images should be replaced if possible, and the image was not particularly representative of the bird, it's really hard to see what is being shown, compared to the other images. KP Botany 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Third, the point about printing taxoboxes as high resolution does have some merit, however, if the goal is spreading knowledge, one would in general choose a higher resolution image (all else being equal, which is not true in this case) since by placing it in the article, it is more likely to be used elsewhere. If one were to make a print version as a book, that would require editorial layout, which could mean using a larger photo. Just because it is a thumbnail on a webpage does not mean that it would not be changed in a different format. We already have the ability to change thumbnail size in the preferences, although it is incorrectly overridden many times.

Fourthly, as for Steller's Sea-Eagle, the previous images were again of rather low resolution again. As for duplicates, one image of the head was of the same bird, but was a slightly different picture. One was in the article to illustrate the text, the other was in the gallery. Generally when I work on articles if there are enough pictures I like to use the gallery for highlighting different angles of the bird... left side, right side, back, front, head, etc. A few other images do exist with a couple different birds, but I chose ones with more detail. Perhaps that's a mistake, perhaps not. Some community input on this would be helpful too. (The taxobox images in question are this and this. No reason was given for reverting the first image, so I had to guess what the reason was.) The duplicate issue was this version where I used duplicate images in the gallery to highlight each individual part of the bird. I was unaware that this was a problem, since the purpose here is educational. I've done similar things on other articles.

The edit summary clearly states that it has been changed to an adult bird, rather than a juvenile. It's hard to see this from the discussion in the article. Is the lower resolution image that has been removed from the taxobox an image of an adult bird, while the others are juveniles? There are a lot of brown juvenile eagles around, but not many birds as distinctive looking as an adult an adult Stellar's sea-eagle. The adult, in this case, simply must be returned to the taxobox. In birds, I think the only case where one would use a juvenile plumage is if there were no adult pictures. KP Botany 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change, and I just missed the edit summary. That was my mistake totally. -- RM 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fifthly, in terms of the age of the bird to use, that's an editorial decision. Some birds have their full adult plumage for a small portion of their life or have it change with the seasons. It seems picky to be complaining about that, unless there is some consensual standard that I missed and am not following.

This is not necessarily true--the adult plumage is the standard in birding guides, and many juvenile birds of various species look like other of other species, while the adults have distinctive plumage--in the case of the Stellar's sea-eagle, I'm surprised you're even arguing this. The standard here is simply bird guides. KP Botany 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't choosing the adult over the juvenile for the taxobox just plain and simple non-NPOV? If anything, it should be the one that most people see, so if they see juveniles most of the time, that should be the choice. If this is about being a boring encyclopedia and artistic desire aside, then if there are lots of juvenile images, wouldn't that suggest that it is the most common representation of the bird, and thus should be used? Can you convince me that the adult vs juvenile issue is not POV? As for bird guides, after a little thought, I'm not sure I agree with this. I know, I'm probably just being difficult here where no problem exists, but in cases where the juvenile is not easily confused with other species, the same argument cannot be made. Should we be modelled after bird guides and not other metrics? -- RM 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The adult plumage is what distinguishes the species--not the juvenile or even the natal plumage. In a discussion about the distinguishing characteristics of a bird, in a scientific journal, unless it is otherwise stated the discussion is about the adult of the species. In an encyclopedia discussing a bird's plumage, the article is about the adult's plumage unless and except where it states that the plumage under consideration is juvenile. In a bird guide, the plumage pictures, unless otherwise stated are of the adult. This is not NPOV, this is evolutionary genetics. Yes, I think you're just being difficult, but you take great pictures, the two of you are closer than you think on working together, and you're both doing a great job--artists tend to be pains in the asses to work with, throw two together, and who knows what will ensue. But I think you're both really looking for a way to settle this and move on. So, get over the difficulties, and let's start seeing more of both of your pictures in bird articles--then maybe time can be spent on the descriptions in the articles. If you have examples of reputable journals, scientific or bird society sanctioned books, or whatever, that default to juvenile pictures, by all means let me know what they are--but I'll think you'll find the default value is stated as something like non-mating adult male plumage. KP Botany 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a pain, but I just needed to be convinced. If NPOV was easy we wouldn't have these issues. I'm convinced and I withdraw my complaint. -- RM 21:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Obviously both of you want to resolve the issue, which is often not the case in wiki-space. NPOV is absurd and impossible, but important to try to attain--hence, it will always be difficult and the source of disagreement. It's more important to be willing to try to work things out no matter how ruffled your feathers get (sorry, irresistable). Thanks to both of you for attempting to reach accord. KP Botany 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, as for the personal accusation, I am quite consistent here, and this can be seen in the case of the bald eagle article. I care about improving the articles with better pictures, whether I took them or not. I upload plenty of lousy quality pictures that I use because no alternative exists. Those pictures should be replaced when better alternatives exist (as in the Gold Barb article). Also, one final note. I do care about other users. I nominated two images for deletion that I obsoleted earlier this week. I was quite afraid that people would take it personally, but I really am not trying for that. I would not have brought up this issue here if I wasn't concerned about other people's feelings. However, that said, feelings cannot stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I've reverted images where I felt I was clearly right (in my opinion obviously), but in THIS SPECIFIC CASE, it was far from clear, so I did not revert. I don't like the characterization that I don't care. -- RM 20:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Steller's Sea Eagle--one more comment. The photo of the juvenile is excellent and should be included in the article and marked as juvenile plumage. Eagles, like seagulls are one area where this is useful. All things considered, beautiful photographs should be included in articles whenever they don't clutter the article. KP Botany 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to both photographers: Between the two of you, you've added an excellent assortment of images to the bird articles using zoo photographs. Please continue to do so. KP Botany 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Choosing images #2

Another image choice issue is coming up at talk:Bald Eagle regarding wild vs. captivity photos. Am I to assume that the standard procedure is all else being equal use a wild picture vs. one in captivity? What if the captive picture is of higher quality, but a (perhaps slightly) lower quality, but otherwise comparable image exists? This issue is about to take a real form when I replace this image (and perhaps some others) in the Rainbow Lorikeet picture with a much sharper, higher resolution, less blurry, to be uploaded image from captivity (in this case the Philadelphia Zoo), so I'd appreciate any comments. -- RM 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think obvious captivity photos should be depreciated. Things like buildings in the background, man-made perches with poop all over them, and birds wearing bewits are distracting at best. If we have an acceptable image of reasonable photographic quality, we should prefer that to an oversize, super-sharp image that lets you see the saw marks in the barn-board siding. Dhaluza 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can see sharp marks in barn-board siding in the background, that's a depth of field problem, which would be distracting in a captivity or wild photo alike. I originally didn't use the image showing the poop in the Bald Eagle, because the other one that was closer was better, IMO, but it was discussed here that I use that instead. But we should definitely replace that image with a wild picture if it is of similar quality, but doesn't have the negative elements. But the subject is far more important than the background. We don't want to go putting in a wild photo that has a great background but a sub-quality subject, since the whole point is to show the subject. It should be agreed that the most important element is the subject, followed by the surrounding elements. However, what constitutes a "good quality" image is far from clear. I would argue that pictures used should be ideal for large physical prints in other formats if possible, but others do not agree. -- RM 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We should use the best images for the original format of Wikipedia, which is small to medium sized images displayed on a screen. If someone wants to publish a book, they will need to do their own photo research. As you say, what makes an image best is a number of factors, but technical superiority of the image is not paramount, the subject is. And the subject cannot be separated from the surroundings. So we should always prefer an acceptable wild (or apparently wild) image over a "better" image that shows captivity. Dhaluza 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are additional problems with captive subjects that are not problematic with wild subjects. You want an animal in its ecosystem, or a plant in its ecosystem. Captive species have advantages, and may be of mixed genetic stock that is not available in the wild, etc., etc. Yes, you want to use a wild animal, wild bird, wild plant when and where you can, with some preference given to the animal in its natural surroundings (a pigeon-poop covered skyscraper would be perfectly appropriate for an urban falcon, and yes, these are depth of field issues). I get told not to use small images, Dhaluza. In fact, someone complained when I uploaded small images, but now you suggest they are preferable? How so? They're annoying, actually. But, yes, the book issue is spurious. KP Botany 04:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Small is relative of course, but small is not preferable, natural (looking) pictures are. So if an image has sufficient resolution to render the subject, and does so in a "natural" setting, it is preferable to a larger image that shows the subject with excess detail in an unnatural setting.

Your point about urban falcons is well taken, however. If we do use images showing a man-made setting, they should be placed in context. So for your urban falcon example, the caption should state that the bird nests in a city, and the article should discuss urban adaptation. For a bird in a rehabilitation clinic, the caption should refer to that, and the article should mention something about how many birds are treated and released back into the wild. For a bird with bewits, the caption and article should discuss falconry. Dhaluza 10:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent general points, the discussion within the article of the particular context of the image, for all photos. KP Botany 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Category Extinct Year

For extinct animals it should be possible to categorise extinctions by year, at least for the last few years. Something like Category:Extinct in 2006. Would this be a good idea, or a bad one? --h2g2bob 16:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be a bad idea as it takes years ur more usually decades to verify extinctions. See for example Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Ou or Banggai Crow. Dysmorodrepanis 03:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Holotype field?

Given that the taxobox is used for extinct species, would it be appropriate to add a field for holotype? -- Tlesher 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually discuss them in the text (see eg Abavornis); the information is often extremely hard to come by and the field will probably remain unused in most taxa that are not very recently described. Dysmorodrepanis 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Type strain field

Bacteria are designated by strains. The definitive strain of a bacterial species is called the type strain. According to Rules 27(3) and 30 of the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology, the type strain must be deposited in two publicly available culture collections (e.g. the ATCC). It would be useful to include a field for type strains. posted (on 14:13, 2007 April 20) by Ninjatacoshell

Where in the taxobox would the type strain be used? It's different with plants, as there is not great importance taxonomically attached to which species was used for the type genus, so I can't see adding it to plant taxoboxes, but I don't know how to weigh the importance of this for bacteria. For example, what is the type strain of E. coli and where in its taxobox would the type strain be listed? Would it be better to discuss the type strain in the article? It seems that if the type strain were so important, it would already be mentioned in the article? Please elaborate? Remember to sign your posts with four tildes. KP Botany 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to discuss the type strain in the article. Pathogenic bacteria might benefit from discussion of strains, and there, it could be mentioned.

On the other hand, this information is maybe comparable to the describer in eukaryotes. As there, it would be interesting only for specialists, but nice to have in any case. Is there an easy way to get at the info (as with describers of species)? If so, it might be worthwhile to include it. If one has to dig deep in each case, I'd rather put it into the text, optionally, for the time being. Dysmorodrepanis 03:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the describer of the species is included for eukaryotes is that according to the various codes this is how it should properly be presented the first time the species name is used in an article--with animals it includes a year, with plants, just the name(s). This helps the reader identify the specific description attached to the organism, when a species has been described a number of times, by different authors. The information does not have to be dug for at all, because it is a standard part of plant names and animal names in scientific writing. Again, I don't know enough about bacteria, but is the type strain usually mentioned in an article about the organism? Not that I've seen. KP Botany 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be placed in the taxobox so as to fall into the same position as the already-accepted "type_species" field. The type strain for E. coli is ATCC 11775. This can be found directly at ATCC (http://www.atcc.org/common/catalog/numSearch/numResults.cfm?atccNum=11775), at the ASM's List of Approved Bacterial Names (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bacname.chapter.39), the List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature (http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/bacterio/e/escherichia.html), and I'm sure there are other resources. These sites are also useful for finding the year and authority for a bacterial species. I am recommending that "type strain" be given it's own category because it is significant, bacteriologically, and because it's a datum not easily incorporated into the text of the article without disrupting the flow. Ninjatacoshell 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if there already is an accepted field for it for plants and animals, the issue has been discussed already, and it is accepted that type species can and should be included in taxoboxes, in which case, the type strain field for bacteria should be added. KP Botany 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any objections? I'm tagging this on the Taxobox template talk page, so let it be known quickly, if there are. Ninjatacoshell 15:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Escherichia coli
Scientific classification
Phylum:	[cropped Phylum to Order]
Family:	Enterobacteriaceae
Genus:	Escherichia
Species:	coli
Binomial name
Escherichia coli T. Escherich, 1885
Type species
ATCC 11775 (type strain author would appear here)

No, but some add info: since there exists type_species, type_genus, it might be entirely good to code a dedicated type_strain param. Do type strains have describers like taxa in zoology and botany do? If yes, a type_strain_authority is needed too. In either case, a param type_strain_ref would be helpful. This should accept URLs as value and automatically format them to display.

Like this (replace "species" with "strain") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->>

BTW in zoology, we usually cite the abbreviated genus in the species field too, so that one would, in this case, have E. coli and not just coli. Dysmorodrepanis 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is a type strain for bacteria analogous to the type species for animals, or to the authority? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more analogous to a type species for an order of animals or some such, not an authority. KP Botany 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Type species of an order, eh... We don't use that in taxoboxes. We only put (as far as I've seen) type species for a genus. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked if it was analagous to type species for animals or to authority, it is analogous to type species, but not to stype species of a genus, as it's done differently with bacteria. Bacteria aren't animals, so it's hard to answer an analogy about them, and they are covered under a different code. But you asked for a comparative analogy, type species for genus or an authority, bacteria don't deal with genera in the same way that animals do taxonomically, so it's hard to answer. Let's just stick with, it's used in animals where it's appropriate, and there is a level where it's appropriate in bacteria. KP Botany 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For a genus, there is a type species. For a species there is a type strain. Because bacteria are microscopic and can only be observed by culturing them, there has to be a specific strain that can be referred to for determining relatedness. If several strains assigned to a single species are found to be widely divergent, new species are defined. The type strain retains the name of the original species and the others are given the new name. As such, the type strain authority is, by default, the species authority because the original strain used to describe the species becomes the type strain. Ninjatacoshell 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess I could have guessed that, but thanks for the information. I'm playing around with E. coli these days and am a bit amazed about how little I know about bacteria. KP Botany 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Subinfraorders?

missing fields:

| subinfraordo = 
| subinfraordo_authority =

Used for some molluscs for example (see e.g. Stylommatophora) Dysmorodrepanis 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

incertae sedis

Should the Eukaryote colour be used for these organisms of unknown affinity (e.g. Yorgia)? I added a new colour to the list but on second thoughts felt that the eukaryote designation may be more appropriate. Verisimilus T 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably eukaryotes. While multicellular prokaryotes might have exited back then, it's not too likely. Dysmorodrepanis 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image size part deux

I'm concerned that the use of fixed image sizes for the box is inconsistent with the policy recommendation to use thumbs. I realise that this may well apply more to the main article space, but it has to be taken into consideration. I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics of the taxobox, but would it be possible to accomodate a smaller default (180px default for thumbs, according to use prefs), without displaying whitespace or misalignment? - Tiswas^(t) 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You might want to raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes as it applies across the board, not just to this box. Andy Mabbett 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I've stated my case here and here - Tiswas^(t) 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't (or needn't). The recommendation refers to a feature of the [[image:]] markup for inline images; it cannot apply to generic infobox code. IONO whether the thumb param can be applied to the taxobox format at all. Dysmorodrepanis 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why it cannot apply? Is it an issue with the wikicode? - Tiswas^(t) 10:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some params don't work in templates; IONO whether this is one of them. (It might be easily tested though by simply replacing the fixed-width param with "thumb")

But I think there's still a misconception. The "image width" param is cool in the following cases:

• On images with extreme aspect ratios
• When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
• When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
• On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

The latter case clearly applies in the case of taxoboxes.

I'd say it needs to be tested whether using thumb as the default taxobox setting will be aesthetically pleasing. (I guess it won't, because the taxobox is some 10% wider than the default setting for thumb) Dysmorodrepanis 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to use |thumb in infoboxes - there is, however, an aesthetic issue with the border that is created around the thumb. I was hoping, firstly, for a technical appraisal, ad secondly, consensus for guidelines concerning taxobox / infobox image sizes. - Tiswas^(t) 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox images should be set to use 180px to 230px. If one needs to use a larger or smaller px setting, then perhaps cropping and reuploading the image would be a better solution. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to use 204-220-240px in longer articles, for images higher than wide, squareish, and wider than high (230px is quite unusual, at least in the taxa I usually do). The 204 figure is probably obsolete now and should be 196px (IIRC), it is due to making the taxobox the same width as the "sister projects" (Commons etc) boxes so that it would look nice.

"Would" because... what's happening? The taxobox is suddenly offset some pixels to the left, into the article space proper? See here Arctiini, for Commons box alignment. Also, section dividers (lines) now extend beyond the taxobox to the right, and this looks unprofessional: Arctiidae. Dysmorodrepanis 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally gave up being the hold-out for the old style. I can't figure out how to shift it to the right a little, but ask on template talk:taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears some bot is adding "| image_width =" to taxoboxes... not good, because it will break the conservation status image code. (I think image code might just as well be deleted entirely from all taxoboxes where no image is present. Adding images is not a process that can be automated anyway.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Light Gray Borders

The light gray borders make the systematics section looks ugly. The lighter systematics box might be expanded to the same width as the colored bars. Dysmorodrepanis 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

...would that be possible? I actually liked the lighter systematics section background. It added some structure to long taxoboxes (e.g. for some Lepidoptera). Dysmorodrepanis 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Need taxobox" template

A new template, Template:Needtaxobox, is available for the purpose of tagging articles that do not yet have a taxobox. The "What links here" function can be used to comb through articles needing a taxobox. Badagnani 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Former names

Should there be a slot in the box for former names? I've just made a redirect from Mareca penelope to Widgeon based on its entry in a Missing article project and on this. I added the former name to the opening sentence of the article so anyone who landed there via Mareca penelope would know why. But it feels like overloading. Would a slot in the Taxobox be appropriate? I've come across other similar cases before. Gil Gamesh 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change to Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Name

I recommend that the text be changed to 'The name should be the same as the name of the article, except in those cases where the article name is altered from the name of the organism (e.g., by substitution of "x" for the hybrid sign "×", or the addition of "(Genus)" as a disambiguation); in those cases the name should be unaltered.' As it stands, the guideline contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), and will often result in a taxobox that does not mirror the article name. In addition, the possibility exists that the common name used in the taxobox might not be used elsewhere in the article. In short, I see no reason for it not to duplicate the article name.--Curtis Clark 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though perhaps the change should be more specifically for plant articles, since articles for animals use a different naming convention.--SB_Johnny | ^PA! 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that duplicating the article name will work for any organism, since there are already guidelines on the article names.--Curtis Clark 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply remove the "name=" parameter for this to happen. But what about instances like "Dinosaurs"? See also discussion elsewhere. (There are a lot of places to discuss taxobox changes!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verisimilus (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Species names in genus taxoboxes

Hi, I'm creating a bunch of taxoboxes for bacteria and archaea, and I had a question about the way that species should be listed in a genus taxobox. For example, please see Methylarcula or Thermococcus. I've been listing the species alphabetically, and including the full genus name. But I've noticed that others abbreviate the genus name when listing the species, e.g., M. terricola. I'm also not sure how to handle the species with codes like Methylarcula sp. DT-12; should they even be listed at all? I should say straight away that I've no expertise with the modern taxonomy of microbes. Thanks for your help! :) Willow 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)