Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 3

Glosselytridae
Scientific classification

Glosselytridae
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia;
Phylum:	Arthropoda;
Class:	Insecta;
Order:	†Glosselytrodea;
Family:	†Glosselytridae;

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bottom-up taxonomic calculation

Would it be possible to generate the {{Taxobox/taxonomy}} content beginning with parsing the parent, then the grandparent, etc? That might make it easier to add new rules to fix problems that could occur on various levels. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The order of templates within Taxobox/taxonomy is the way up that it is so that the phylum appears above the genus, etc. It's nice to automate what we can, but do remember it's always possible to specify the |display_taxa= parameter (see Template:Automatic taxobox/doc) in specific cases, to over-ride the default behaviour. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I keep forgetting that parameter exists. And I would help you move the number templates if it weren't for the fact I have fallen asleep several times tonight while working on taxon templates. A bowl of ice cream and then off to bed for me...I shall return another day. Great teamwork this weekend, Martin.

By the way...I was referring mostly to the fact that we could easily have five or six unranked taxa, and bottom-up parsing instead of top-down parsing would possibly allow for shorter code...but like you said, these are rare circumstances where the display_taxa parameter ought to be employed. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Parameter request for taxonomic units

Could a parameter be added to {{Taxonomic unit}} allowing the taxon to always be displayed with a dagger next to it to show extinction? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the dagger is ever necessary (this information is generally contained within the fossil_range information), but can it not be specified in the "link" parameter at taxonomy/taxonname? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the taxonomy template for that particular taxon produces a link which includes the dagger as a part of the link. It's not a problem to me, but it would be nice if the switchover to automatic taxoboxes was as invisible as possible. I've included the old and new taxoboxes for comparison. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What about placing the dagger beside "Order" rather than "Glosselytridae"? This would be easy to implement and preserve the information. (and in my opinion it'd look better...) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking WT:WikiProject Extinction#Automatic taxobox might require extinction dagger format rehaul what they think about it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the option that's given by Bob. Most often you will find the dagger placed directly in front of a taxon name when the convention is used in a scientific paper. I don't recall any situations of the dagger being placed before the the taxon level.--Kev min § 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the plan still to add an "extinct=yes"? Or are we just using the pipe on the redirect? amidoinitrite: Schistomerus? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy maintenance

A perceived weakness in the current template is the difficulty of editing a taxonomy whilst it exists.

This could be considered a benefit insofar as it discourages vandalism and ensures that only carefully-considered changes are made; however, it also distances casual users from the process.

Assuming therefore that the editing process should be as simple as possible, I wonder the best way to assist would-be editors.

My current thinking is that an "edit" link could be included somewhere in the taxobox, taking the user to a toolserver page that takes them through the editing process.

An alternative would be to have a small edit link/icon beside each rank, although this would be somewhat cluttersome.

Ideas are welcome.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Aves

...etc...

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too, but dismissed the idea because it presents clickable links users might follow expecting to get more information on that rank and are instead taken to a template editing screen. I think such an explicit link would also encourage more vandalism. I think a small edit link as Martin suggested would be best. All navbox templates at the bottom of articles have the little links for view, edit, and discuss. Would it most intuitive to put the edit link next to "Scientific classification"? Just as long as it doesn't interrupt the few existing cases that use |classification_status=disputed, e.g. Oryzomys anoblepas. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and the target page of this unintrusive link is where we could implement a sort of taxobox that displays all the taxa, even the hidden ones, with an {{edit}} link for each taxon. Of course, the target page would need to be a toolserver page of some sort. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll submit a bot request and work on a toolserver page when I next get some coding time. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Auto color not controlled in "conservation status" section?

E.g., in a plant article with a conservation status, the color should be lightgreen, not the Animalia brown. See Levenhookia octomaculata. Might be worth checking other section, too. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Weiiiiird. I'll go check this out. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

– Fixed the conservation status so it checks the kingdom rather than always assuming Animalia. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why won't divisio show on Welwitschia?

The division Gnetophyta doesn't show up in the automatic taxobox on the Welwitschia article (but is linked in the tree via Template:Taxonomy/Gnetopsida). It should. Any idea why? It does, however, show up at Gnetophyta, which serves as the article for Gnetopsida as well, because I set the taxon = Gnetopsida. Divisio is a major rank in botany and should always display without setting ; there's also zoodivisio, which is, I think (?) a minor rank in zoology, which normally shouldn't display. Is this correctly coded in the template? We shouldn't have to set |always_display=true at every divisio Template:Taxonomy/ page. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's correct; zoology recognizes division as an intermediate taxon. If what you say is true about zoodivisio being available, I'd think that should be relatively implementable. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

– Added "divisio" to the always-displayed taxa. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

zoodivision should read "Division"

I'm not finding the place where I can change the string displayed for "zoodivision" at the moment. Anyone know? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's at template:Anglicise rank (fixed here). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Breaks on empty field

If I close my {{Automatic taxobox}} with an empty field, ie |}}, then it doesn't work. People write it this way a lot for some reason, and {{Taxobox}} works if you do it, and it's not simple to debug this, so it's probably worth looking at after the mysterious blank-row-with-{{italictitle}}-bug. Thanks; this is a glorious attack on duplicated data. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. In plants, I know a lot of the empty fields came from taxobox conversion to APG III. The series of templates User:Hesperian and I were using placed an empty field at the bottom for some reason. I just try to remember it and remove it when converting to the automatic taxobox. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it; let me know if not. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

– Looks good, thanks. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Protista and Bikonta

Hmmmm. Protists (traditionally khaki around here) are no longer recognized as a valid taxon, but there are still unclassified protists. Protista comes up with an ugly taxobox.

Bikonta comes up with an ugly one, too. It ought to be solid white. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did it used to be white in the manual taxoboxes? There's no indication of this at Template:Taxobox_colour; this (and its docs) should be updated first. Just to check, no bikonts also fall into a category recognized by Template:is reg, do they? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved? (There may be slight side-effects in Template:Taxobox but I think I've fixed them all.) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, at least when I try those two taxa. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities?

Maybe it is my ignorance, but I just implemented the automatic taxobox for Drosophila. What went missing is the genus authority. Did I miss something? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Since rank is determined by the Template:Taxonomy/page, all you have to do is drop the genus from genus_authority = and write authority =. If you ever have a monotypic taxon that also needs an authority for its parent taxon, use parent_authority =. See the automatic taxobox I just created at Welwitschia for an example of several parent monotypic taxa. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic title template

As discussed at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox/Archive_1#Extra_space?, the {{Italic title}} template causes an extra newline if the {{Automatic taxobox}} is not started on the same line as {{Italic title}}. One suggestion there was to omit the redundant {{Italic title}}, but if the name field is used in {{Automatic taxobox}}, then the title won't be italicized – see Template:Taxobox#Italic_page_titles; a simple robust fix is to slap an {{Italic title}} on there. My point is just that this is quite convoluted, so just dismissing {{Italic title}} as totally unnecessary doesn't really capture the whole situation. I think if we replace {{Taxobox}} with {{Automatic taxobox}} and don't "fix" the newline issue then at least we need to rework all the examples to not always include the name field. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue fixed now? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup; looks good! Thanks for doing this template, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)