Template:TOL

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

As per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, images in this infobox should have alt text if the images have a function (and are not purely decoration). This infobox can generate several functional images, for the main and subsidiary images and for range maps, and there should be a way to specify alt text for all of them. Also, this image can generate nonfunctional images for the extinction status, and these need to be marked as nonfunctional using "link=".

I've prepared changes to implement this in the sandbox, and have tested them using the test cases, and have updated the documentation accordingly. Can you please install the template changes into the main version? The easiest way to do this is to copy the sandbox into the main version, but remove the "/sandbox" in the sandbox copy first. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant to me. There's already a caption which ought to be utilized. Why do we need a second caption? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Captions and alt text have quite different functions. Alt text is meant for people who can't see the image (e.g., the visually impaired), and describes only what the image looks like. Sighted readers don't need alt text (because they can see the image) and don't want to waste screen space on alt text. A caption explains the image, and is useful to both sighted and visually impaired readers. For example, the caption for Image:Flag of Ireland.svg might be "The national flag of Ireland was adopted in 1919." whereas the alt text might be "Vertical tricolor flag (green, white, orange)". Please see the WP:ALT guideline for more information on alt text.
• Support for alt text has been added recently to the underlying MediaWiki software, and has been added to several Wikimedia infobox templates, including {{Infobox artwork}}, {{Infobox bridge}}, {{Infobox Country}}, {{Infobox Disease}}, and {{Infobox Museum}}. Is there anything about {{Taxobox}} that would make it different from these other templates?

Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hesperian 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{taxobox|name=Test}}

Something is causing some extraneous text to show. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That happens when the template can't automatically figure out the color and doesn't have an input. E.g. a taxobox with | regnum = [[Plant]]ae will look fine. Did you have a specific instance of this? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added an automated archiver, User:MiszaBot/config, set at 7 days, it'll stop leaving 4 threads left if discussions slows. Moved archive subpages so that they'd appear in the {{archives}}, marked the redirects for deletion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 days is a bit excessive for a low-churn page like template talk. I've bumped it to 31. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've bumped it to 180 days: already 12 archives in 4 years (!). I edited the various archive files (kids, don't do this) to have 2008 in /Archive_11, and I put all of 2009 into /Archive_12, but with 12 archives, some contain only 2 topic threads. Year 2006 is actually split across 8 files: in Archive_1 to Archive_8. All topics could have been just 4 archive files, with the 4th as 2009. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the notice, but you didn't change the bot; I've fixed this now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me out with what happened here? I changed the name of the species in keeping with the move and also made the link to animal not a redirect and the taxobox went crazy. Changing animal back to a redirect made it all go back to normal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template that automatically figures out what color to pick for the taxobox, {{taxobox colour}}, only recognizes a few phrases. It would have recognized either [[Animalia]] or [[Animal]]ia but not [[Animal|Animalia]]. Since this seems like a common construct and things editors do shouldn't break the taxobox, I added the latter to the template's list of strings to recognize. The most common construct and the simplest is perhaps [[Animal]]ia, just like in plant articles we use [[Plant]]ae. Hope that helps explain it! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN. ;-) Hesperian 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see! That makes sense. [[Animal]]ia is a much more elegant way of skipping the redirect anyways. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The type species should really appear as first item under the break after the article taxon and its author. It looks crappy now, with the type species being listed under diversity.

Reading flow is impeded, as the "type_species" section is an equivalent of the "binomial"/"binomial_authority" section of species (and "trinomial" of sspp.), while the "diversity" section is an equivalent of "subdivision_ranks" (I use it whenever there are more than 5 subordinate taxa or so) and links out of the taxobox. Therefore, each should hold the same position as their equivalent.

{{editprotected}}

Proposed sequence of taxobox sections is thus:

• Name
• Image
• Status
• Classification
• Binomial/author OR trinomial/author OR type species/author (these are mutually exclusive - used for species, subspecies and anything above species, respectively)
• Diversity/subdivision_ranks (these two are mutually exclusive in practice; it makes little sense to use both in one taxobox)
• Map
• Synonyms

This would probably be accomplished by moving the following:

 {{#if:{{{diversity|}}}|
 ! [[{{{diversity_link}}}|Diversity]] {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} | {{ns:0}} | [[Category:Articles using diversity taxobox]] | }}
 {{!}}- style="text-align:center;"
 {{!}} {{{diversity|}}}}} 
 |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"

to below

 ! [[Biological type|Type strain]]
 {{!}}- style="text-align:center;"
 {{!}} {{{type_strain}}}}}
 |- style="text-align:center;" 

i.e. before

{{#if:{{{range_map|}}}|

amirite?

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind illustrating the perceived problem and proposed solution via printed screens? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled request for now. Please discuss and replace the request if/when you have consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Schizothorax for the current version, here for the proposed change. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. I think the type species, as you have suggested, should be listed before the rest. Perfectly logical to me. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Sounds like a good idea. –Visionholder (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Diversity should really be directly prior to subdivision ranks. In your example, there may be subgenera or species complexes that can be used in the subdivision ranks section, but the number of species in that scenario is still a useful bit of information. To clarify my "vote" - I support the change as proposed because this is clearly an improvement, but I also suggest a specific location for "diversity" relative to the parameters not discussed. --Aranae (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that. With your username, you've probably come across more "diversity" sections in taxoboxes than most. Sarefo uses them almost by default, and though I was reserved at first, he convinced me to use them too. (Actually, I think I proposed the same you do now some some time ago) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as above. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change proposed would additionally involve shifting

 {{#if:{{{subdivision|}}}|
 ! {{{subdivision_ranks}}}
 {{!}}-
 {{!}} style="padding:0 .5em; text-align:left;" {{!}}
 {{{subdivision|}}} }}
 |-style="text-align:center; background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum| {{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"

to immediately above the "diversity" section.

Only "Synonyms" would then be below the maps. But that section is probably the one the average user needs least, so it doesn't hurt. Some who do synonym-rich taxa deal with it in the maintext exclusively; the Dino project for example IIRC. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make a quick comment lest I be viewed as any sort of expert on this subject. I mostly work on rodents and had not noticed the diversity parameter prior to this discussion. The username is an old, intentionally misspelled nickname, based on how I wrestled way back in high school. --Aranae (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the change at User:Hesperian/Taxobox. Here is the proposed diff.[1]. The taxobox on the right uses this code. The changes are slightly different from what is stated above. If I can get confirmation that this meets the request, I'll push it in. Hesperian 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like it better this way - without the linebreak behind the type species' scientific name. No need to waste a line of screen for that information. Totally gets my vote ;) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hesperian 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've fixed the pre mode problem.[2] Hesperian 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{editprotected}}

Please delete the whitespace after {{{binomial}}} in the {{{name}}} part (line four of the code), as in this edit. This fixes the italic title problem. [3] Ucucha 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nice catch.  Done. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hesperian 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done.[4] Changes to very high-use templates do not propagate through Wikipedia instantaneously; it may take a little while before you can see it everywhere. I have purged the change into Gyrotoma for you, however. Hesperian 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed now. It was a stray carriage return.[5] Hesperian 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

In 2007 Sarefo suggested the following:

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

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

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

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

| diversity = 41 genera

to appear as

Diversity

41 genera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hesperian 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW the rules as regards citation in zoology are uneven.

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

Or has it changed? "extinct = [year]" does not show anymore. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]