See the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage to learn how to use this template.

Archives

/archive001 /archive002 /archive003 /archive004 /archive005 /archive006 /archive007 /archive008 /archive009 /archive010

Some admins doing category work had noticed that there were alot of user pages turning up in animal related categories, and we tracked it down to this template being used on user subpages for drafting or testing purposes. I've edited the template to only apply categories when the template is being used in mainspace. --bainer (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that NCBI assigns a unique Taxonomy ID number for each species, and uses that number in linking. Would it be appropriate to have an optional line in the Taxobox template for that number? NCBI Taxonomy --Bejnar 06:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Put it in the external links or references, as all other such IDs are done. --unsigned by UtherSRG 12:55, 13 May 2007

What other like-kind IDs are there? --71.37.150.61 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN redlist has an ID number, CephBase has an ID number, FishBase has an ID number, etc., etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Infobox Dogbreed includes the FCI number. --Bejnar 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Just because it works for that box, doesn't mean it is right for this box. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many taxa have been assigned IDs by NCBI? —Pengo 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there are approx 250,000 taxa that have been assigned IDs by NCBI in the database, growing at the rate of 2900 new taxa a month Wheeler, David L. (2007) "Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information" Nucleic Acids Research 35: . For example, Rotylenchulus reniformis is NCBI Taxonomy ID: 239373.--Bejnar 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've created an image Image:Status_none_DD.svg for italian wikipedia. (Example)

For insert it in en.wiki you can change the 18° line:

 |DD|dd=Data deficient

in

 |DD|dd=[[Image:Status none DD.svg|200px]]<br>Data deficient

I hope that it can be useful ;-) -- :it:Brodo(msg)

Could somebody replace first line with: class="infobox" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-right: 0.5em; text-align: center;padding:2.5px"; |- style="text-align:center;", please. It looks much better. For example: sl:Ptiči.--WailingWailer 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; though I won't make the change without more consensus due to the high usage of this template. Anyone else want to weight in? --MZMcBride 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems better to me. Much neater. Although in some articles (e.g. Eukaryote, Antilope) taxoboxes are built line by line so those should be taken care of too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason the multiple templates used for those types of pages can't be merged into one? --MZMcBride 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in some cases (like Eukaryote) there is such a reason. Even when there is not, there are quite many of such articles with multiple templates [1], which I'm not volunteering to update. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The infobox class clashes with some of the colors used for the taxobox. It has been discussed over and over and shot down every time. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're just closed minded to any changes to the taxobox. Usually someone disagrees with it (the colours clash with a gray border?), the idea loses steam, and it's forgotten about. The current taxobox looks like shit. —Pengo 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help a lot if UtherSRG demonstrated this in a sandbox (or provided some other link). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been demonstrated before either on this talk (search the archives) or the talk on WP:TOL (again, search the archives). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the WP:TOL archives and the only thing I could find was your opposition to infobox standardisation in archive 15. However, there I didn't see any real reason the CSS class couldn't be used. This page does not have an archive (though it probably should) and I've only seen comments that are relatively old. Once again, I don't see any legitimate opposition. The infobox CSS class is used extensively throughout Wikipedia, and there seems to be consensus for the change. Unless there is a legitimate objection, I'll go ahead and fulfill the editprotected request by the end of the day. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put test code in my sandbox. Examples seen using the code are available here. Please feel free to check the code and make any corrections. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has any better objections than "search the archives" then I'm updating the taxobox to this. The new format is a huge improvement. —Pengo 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my support for the change. Mgiganteus1 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Looks like the end of an era. I'll even be the one who does the edit... - UtherSRG (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! —Pengo 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}}

A microformat for species is currently under development; there is a draft ("straw man") specification. It is recognised by the Operator extension for Firefox (using an add-in user script). I would like to apply it to this taxobox, to see what editors here think of it. It should have no impact on editors not looking for the microformat. The following changes would be required:

• Apply class="biota" to the whole infobox.
• Apply class="vernacular" in a span around {{{name}}}
• Apply class="domain" in a span around {{{domain}}}
• Apply class="kingdom" in a span around {{{regnum}}}

• Ditto for: subkingdom / subregnum; superphylum / superphylum; phylum / phylum; ; subphylum / subphylum; taxoclass / classis; subclass / subclassis; infraclass / infraclassis' superorder / superordo; order / ordo; suborder / subordo; infraorder / infraordo; parvorder / parvordo; superfamily / superfamilia; family / familia; subfamily / subfamilia; genus / genus; binominal / binomial; variety / variety

Thank you.

I should also be interested in comments on the "straw man" proposal, especially the ranks and their names (which may change before the final specification is issued), though those those might be better made on the microformats wiki page.

See also: microformats on Wikipedia.

Andy Mabbett 12:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where a taxon doesn't have a common name, the {{{name}}} parameter is typically passed the scientific name, so I don't think class="vernacular" would be quite right. Hesperian 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've struck that one out, for now. Andy Mabbett 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception noted by Hesperian, I'm in agreement that this should be done. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put test code in my sandbox. Examples seen using the code are available here. Please feel free to check the code and make any corrections. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I wasn't clear enough, so you applied class="kingdom" to every property; in the above list "order / ordo", for example, means "Apply class="order" in a span around {{{ordo}}}". Andy Mabbett 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes a lot more sense. : - ) I made the changes. --MZMcBride 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just need to resolve what I think is a bug with species in the latest operator beta, which I'm also testing, before I can test your page, but it looks OK. Andy Mabbett 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. It's ~2am here; I'll look at the results and add documentation tomorrow! Andy Mabbett 00:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}}

Sorry about this; class="binominal" should be class="binomial" (no "n"). Andy Mabbett 12:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. --ais523 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operator can read the microformat, but says that it's invalid; I think the problem is with the extension, and have reported the matter to its developer.

I've also added a note about the microformat to the template documentation page, inviting further comment. I'll be happy to relay comments, made here, back to the microformat community, and Operator's developer.

Andy Mabbett 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::The bug is with the labelling used for display in Operator, and a fix is in hand. Andy Mabbett 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kaply has kindly fixed the bug, and Operator is now detecting the microformat in all pages with taxoboxes :-)

Since both the microformat and the related Operator script are still in development, there isn't much you can do with them yet, but the "actions" view allows a search on WikiSpecies, and the "data format" view with "debug" enabled allows one to see the data parsed.

What needs doing next is to firm up the microformat spec: What should all the parameters be called; which ranks should be used; how do we handle the edge cases, like hybrids, cultivars, morphs, etc? While canonical discussion should be on the microformats wiki, I'm happy to report back to there, any discussion here. After all, I think the expertise and a good spread of test cases, are here.

Any thoughts?

Andy Mabbett 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One.... I have Operator 0.8a.... but it doesn't ship with biota. Where can I get the biota microformat? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need the "species" user script, from http://www.kaply.com/weblog/operator-user-scripts/ - existing users should note that that was updated as few hours ago. After installing it (overwriting the previous version, if any), restart FireFox. NOte that there are user scripts for other microformats, too. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I go that, added the user script to operator and restarted Firefox, but still nothing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go into "Data Formats" and add "Species"; and into "Actions" and add "WikiSpecies"? You'll need another restart after that. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Incomplete instructions. ;) No I didn't. Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok., Works now. Doesn't do anything, as you said it wouldn't, but it works. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no urgency, but in order to make use of a species microformat, we're going to need to make a couple of tweaks to the template. I'm mentioning this now, so there's plenty of opportunity to consider the possible solutions.

Vernacular

Firstly, we need a way to wrap a span around a vernacular name, but not around the binominal if that's substituted when no vernacular is entered. Something like this pseudocode:

If vernacular exists, display [Name: <span class="vernacular">{{{vernacular}}}</span>]
Else display [Name: {{{binominal}}}]

Alternatively, we could have two properties, "vernacular" and "other display name", but the conversion would be a headache.

Specific epithet

Secondly, the "species" parameter is currently entered as:

species = E. robustus

and the binomial as:

binomial = Eschrichtius robustus

We need a way to have the specific epithet (in this case "robustus") as a separate entity, so that it can be wrapped in a span. This might be achieved by, say, entering:

genus = Eschrichtius

specific = robustus

and having the template code construct the binomial (and/ or "species"). A bot could possibly do the initial conversion; after that there would actually be less work for new editors to do (we could also have the emboldening/ italicising in the template code).

Authority

Lastly, authority is currently entred as:

binomial_authority = (DeKay, 1842)

and it would be handy to have these entered as:

binomial_authority = DeKay

binomial_authority_year = 1842

so that they can be individually wrapped, and then recombined into one line (with parentheses if desired) by the template.

Any alternative suggestions, or other comments? Andy Mabbett 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Andy Mabbett 09:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to vernacular names... As far as I can tell the {{{name}}} attribute is always entered directly; it doesn't default to anything within the template. I suppose the template could auto-detect whether name=binomial, something like:

{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|{{{binomial}}}|{{{name}}}|<span class="vernacular">{{{name}}}</span>}}

...but that might end up incorrectly labeling some scientific names as "vernacular" just because of a mismatch (perhaps due to capitalization, spelling, stray punctuation marks, incomplete updates, etc.). And it wouldn't work at all above the species level... Regarding the rest, it seems reasonable (I've always thought the current way of entering species and binomial name was a bit odd). A bot would definitely be needed, though. -- Visviva 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask because two taxoboxes on my watchlist, American Goldfinch and and New Zealand Snipe, have been altered today because the long text below an illustration was no longer breaking [2] and [3]. Says one of the editors doing this...Break up caption that was causing ridiculously wide infobox (in IE7, anyway. When I looked at the old versions in IE it did indeed become ridiculously wide. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it has to do with removing the width CSS entity. The infobox should probably be set to width:23em. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed similar things going on in my watchlist (i.e. Stylidium debile). I like the new look, but can we get a quick resolution to this issue? Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 05:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this needs to be fixed. Whoever did this, please undo it. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I dislike the colored background. The solid-color bars don't reach the edges, so it ends up looking discolored when it used to blend nicely with the while page background. This looks especilly bad on animal pages, which use pink, since the new background seems to be a faint pink itself. Illustrations with white backgrounds also look bad without a border, when again, the transparent taxobozes allowed them to blend with the white of the page and appear to fill the image screen. Overall... blech. Dinoguy2 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

width:200px; should be reinstated into template. diff of today's edits. –Pomte 07:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... shouldn't this be as simple as finding the edit that screwed things up on the template history & reverting it? It'd be pretty obvious as it would affect the caption break... My 2 cents... Spawn Man 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the width:200px; back into the infobox, and wrapping now seems to work, at least on the article I looked at, Stylidium debile.-gadfium 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire taxobox is shifted some pixels to the left... looks quite ugly as section break lines now extend to the box's right (e.g. Arctiidae) Dysmorodrepanis 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I liked the lighter background to the systematics section. It made for easier reading in long, complex taxoboxes. Dysmorodrepanis 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was switched to use the "infobox" class to put it in-line with the vast majority of templates used throughout Wikipedia. It's more easily readable for users with sight problems and it furthers the projects goals with respect to access. Also, as a quick note to those able to ediit the template, 37,000+ transclusions have to be updated even for the smallest edit / revert. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KK, but it's still shifted some 4 pixels left from the right margin of the article text ?cell/field?. Dysmorodrepanis 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 37140 articles currently use this template. —Pengo 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me how many articles call this template; or better still, how to find that out for myself? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you want is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox&limit=500&from=0 , but good luck counting how many pages of 500 articles use this template.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the whatlinkshere page only offers links up to 500, the backend accepts limits up to 5000, if you manually edit the url. So try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox&limit=5000&from=0 . Hesperian 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya learn something new everyday. Too bad this was all I'm going to learn today. ;) Now if only we didn't have to use such tricks to count the pages.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're an AWB user you could use the whattranscludeshere feature to load a session, then look at the count. Heck, I'll do it for you, it will only take a minute or two... 37140 articles. Hesperian 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. Andy Mabbett 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you guys trying to update Taxobox. How do you do thtat? Do you have a "template sandbox" where you make the changes to a copy of the template to see how it is going to look and after they are OK then you apply them to the actual template OR do you edit the actual template without the precaution? -- Boris 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We try to edit in a sandbox, as it's easy to make mistakes. There's no universal sandbox for the taxobox, and instead people make their own. Details are at Template:Taxobox#Making_changes. —Pengo 09:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've changed the style of the taxobox I've realised that the first line should have a plain (white) background. Can we remove the coloured highlight from the name field of the taxobox? The name is conceptually at a higher heading level than its "subheadings" such as "Scientific classification" and "Binomial name" etc, and the pink/green background should be reserved only for those "second level" headings. It would also look better when there was no photo. Does anyone disagree with this? —Pengo 08:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, it looks awful unless the images are given their own pink/green subheading: like this. Which doesn't look great either. So forget it. I still prefer the format for taxoboxes without images, but I don't think taking images out of taxoboxes would be so popular —Pengo 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask if some of the fields of this infobox are always latin terms, namely the binomial nomenclature or the different ranks of Scientific classification. That's because non-English words should be tagged using the {{lang}} template, in this case {{lang|la|...}} for (la for Latin). See Template talk:lang. This will be an easy change. Best regards, —surueña 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; scientific names (not "latin names", please!) often include words from other languages, or made up words. As I have suggested elsewhere, there is a need for a language code for such terms. Incidentally, I've also recently documented how the draft 'Species' microformat can help translation agents to know which words not to translate (such as "major" in Parus major). Andy Mabbett 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see... You are completely aware of the advantages of language tags, and that's a good thing. Yes, probably using microformats is the best solution until another approach is standarized. But I'm mainly concerned about accessibility issues, so in my opinion the microformat used should not only be focused in automatic translations but also in screen readers. Best regards, —surueña 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about screen readers (I'm an accessibility advocate, too); and screen readers could indeed recognise microformatted content. However, that's a side issue for microformats, which are about marking up existing data so that it can be sued as metadata by parsers and user agents of any type. Cheers, Andy Mabbett 14:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a side issue, but what I want to say is that, in addition, the scientific terms also need some kind of "pronuntiation microformat". A screen reader cannot infer from the 'translation metadata' how to "render" those words, and thus it would be useless wrt accessibility. I'm not an expert about microformats, please, am I missing something? Best regards, —surueña 07:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point, but this would be better discussed on the microformats mailing list. Andy Mabbett 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And keep your great job at enabling semantic content in the web! —surueña 15:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Please consider joining the Microformats on Wikipedia project, and see discussion at What Wikipedia is not. Andy Mabbett 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The taxoboxes are still offset a few pixels (4 or so) from the right margin. Compare for example Sierra Madre Sparrow with Akkadian language. Somebody please correct that. Dysmorodrepanis 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has any thought been given to applying the Wikispecies solution to taxoboxes, i.e. nesting classification templates? This would mean that when the affiliation of a taxon is changed, all relevant taxoboxes could be updated with a single edit. On the other hand, it might be regarded as imposing undue server load (although if that isn't a problem for Wikispecies, perhaps it wouldn't be a problem here either). The logistics might be a little complicated; I'm just curious if anyone has been exploring this possibility. -- Visviva 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with this is that this is exactly one of the things that causes problems with the accuracy of Wikispecies. These days, we're dealing with an increasing number of taxa the exact phylogenetic placement of which needs more data... Wikispecies all too often suggests accuracy when in the real-world science, there is none. Dysmorodrepanis 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be possible to include "incertae sedis" or where possible a link to a description of the controversy/lacuna/problem in the template for the relevant taxon -- and such a qualification would then be automatically transmitted to any downstream articles/templates using that template. The problem with the current situation is that when such problems arise, it is a Royal Pain to indicate them separately in every relevant taxobox, just as it is also a Royal Pain to reflect updates in the canonical taxonomy. -- Visviva 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this is possible right now too, and it would be more efficient (not to mention scientifically accurate) than to bloat the taxobox to include all vagarities of nomenclature. (Three examples: Bearded Reedling, Tapaculo and Stitchbird) But yes, it is indeed a pain. I'm not sure though whether such an automatized approach won't break more thing than it'll fix, because each of the 3 examples would probably require different treatment: one is incertae sedis, one is non-monophyletic, one is an unnamed recent split. Dysmorodrepanis 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point for discussion: the present system of unranked clades doesn't reflect what these things are. The major point (and usefulness) is that an indefinite number of taxa can be set up hierarchically. That includes several unranked taxa between any two named ranks. For example, it is impossible to do a good taxobox for any given theropod with a known phylogeny - the systematics presented in the article can simply not be mapped onto the taxobox template. Unranked and ranked taxa need to be separated; it just doesn't make sense otherwise. IONO whether this is possible, but simply placing the output of "unranked =" where it stands in the sequence, and if multiple unranked clades are needed using "unranked1 =" "unranked2 =" might do the job. Dysmorodrepanis 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be feasible to put a free-text field after every rank; would that be adequate? Otherwise I don't see anything that would work without making the code massively hairier than it is now. -- Visviva 12:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would do it. The way rank-free taxa work, there would need to be a theoretically infinite number of rank-free inserts after any ranked taxon... Dysmorodrepanis 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we include a type species space for articles about genera? Bendž|Ť 20:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think it should be used as often as it is. I have seen it used corractly maybe 1 time out of 20... the intuitive way to cite type species is formally totally off in most cases: why the type species of Homarus is correctly cited as Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775 is a bit hard to understand, stupid ICZN! It is better to just denote the type species in a species list like here: Palaeeudyptes. That way, you won't have to browse the nth edition of Systema Naturae of whatnot. Dysmorodrepanis 07:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new user script for the 'Species' microformat has been released; adding extra search options and improving the search facility for ranks other than binomials. See above for background information. Andy Mabbett 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could {{{name}}} be replaced with Taxobox so that it only has to be specified when you need a different name? (I've always liked to keep the size of templates in articles to a minimum as huge templates make editing the text more difficult and daunting). Thanks. Verisimilus T 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]