Wikipedia talk:How to read a taxobox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject iconTree of Life Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I want to make one[edit]

Has anyone ever thought of making a taxonomy chart for products and services? Bmunden 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Nice![edit]

Very nice! I'm glad someone finally added this to the taxoboxes. --User:Chinasaur

(Query moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Gdr 13:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]



Is there a certain code to make taxobox? other than { { taxobox } } etc.

I agree. Very nice! Eperotao 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification, nomenclature, and science[edit]

A classification is most emphatically not a scientific hypothesis. It is not testable. All manner of splitting and lumping can be done even if everyone agrees on the shape of the phylogenetic tree and even if everyone agrees on whether or not to use which paraphyletic taxa. None of the three codes of Linnean nomenclature requires any science (such as phylogenetics) to be done before proposing a new classification. David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:15 CEST | 2006/5/12

I don't understand Marjanović's objection. Modern classification is phylogentic and is based on a hypothesis about relatedness. That doesn't mean it's all correct. And there are historical holdovers (such as distinguising between birds and reptiles). But most classifications are best guesses, or consensus decisions at least and, as I say, based on a hypothesis about relatedness. Splitting and lumping is an issue, but that doesn't alter the relatedness of organisms. Just as you may not acknowledge a 5th cousin as being part of your "family," she is still distantly related to you. What is David Marjanović proposing specifically? Eperotao 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to use the latest classification of Prokaryotes, Archeas and Eukaryotes? Lord Metroid 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The three domains are, I believe, the Eubacteria, the Archaea, and the Eukarya (which are descended from the Archaea). Within each domain are several kingdoms. The kingdoms Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia are, of course, Eukarya. But the other domains also contain 3 or more kingdoms as well, I believe. I'm just writing from memory. But the taxonomy here is surprising (ly out of date) given the precision of the rest of the box. The three domains have been well accepted for close to a decade now, possibly longer. Eperotao 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information link[edit]

Moved query to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status[edit]

The conservation status on the taxoboxes I've seen isn't directly under the common name anymore, but is instead under the photo, someone who has the time and knowhow should change this page to reflect that... Whirlingdervish 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace[edit]

Shouldn't this be in the Help namespace, i.e., Help:How to read a taxobox? --Oldak Quill 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution?[edit]

Could we add a distribution section like they have in the Wildlife Fact File? Brisvegas 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rank[edit]

For taxoboxes that describe a rank, not a species, the taxobox will list the sub-ranks. Some of these may be marked with a dagger, which I believe means that all members of this sub-rank are extinct, for example Hominini. However, this is not stated. We should add a note to the article about rank boxes, and the annotations mean. I think i've also seen an astrisk used. CS Miller 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background color[edit]

The sample infobox for the Colorado potato beetle in WP:How to read a taxobox has  this  for a background color. The actual Colorado potato beetle article, however, uses  this . Why are they different? Peter Brown (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because in 2005 when File:Taxobox example.png was uploaded, the project had used #FFC3D2 for animals. At some point we switched to #D3D3A4. I guess no one bothered to update the image, but the page was updated with the correct colors further down the page. This page used to be of more use when each taxobox had a link to it in the corner. I'm not sure how useful it is now. Should it maybe be labeled with something like {{historical}}? Rkitko (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and add a note to the article, since this confused me, too. --Ernstkm (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:How_to_read_a_taxobox&oldid=1169206732"