Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 1

Primates
	Olive Baboon
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Subclass:	Eutheria
Not ranked:	Euarchontoglires
Superorder:	Euarchonta
Order:	Primates; Linnaeus, 1758
Families
	15, See classification;

Suggested parameters[edit]

Great work bringing on the new template!... but there are still a couple of parameters missing.

Firstly, I need to be able to specify taxa at "Section" and "Series" rank. See Taxonomy of Banksia for evidence of a number of non-existent species articles, for which these ranks will be needed when I get around to writing them.

Secondly, the "Diversity" option was very useful. I used it at Banksia to state the number of species, since the subdivision was at subgenus rank. It is also very useful for higher taxa such as families and orders.

Thirdly, the "Synonyms" option was also useful, and should be included here.

Snottygobble | Talk 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity option done. Snottygobble | Talk 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Section, Series and Synonyms options done. Snottygobble | Talk 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The "section" rank should have been entered in Latin, so it should have been 'Sectio'. (The sectio templates already existed). I don't think the section and series ranks were added in the right place. At least on the page Taxonomy of Banksia, both ranks are above the Families.
  - Thanks for that, but you lost me in the last sentence there. On Taxonomy of Banksia, Banksia is a genus, and sections and series are subgeneric taxa, just as in the taxobox. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, they are. I misremembered. However, you inserted them at the bottom of the template, below the subspecies level. Eugene van der Pijll 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - So I did; thanks for picking that up. It's fixed now. Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your addition of the diversity and synonym templates inserted more whitespace in taxoboxes not containing these templates. I've tried to remove the whitespace, with horrible effects on Banksia... As that is so far the only page using a new taxobox with these templates, I've subst'ed the taxobox, and repaired it manually. I hope someone knowledgeable in the arcane templating arts can debug the template... Eugene van der Pijll 17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I confess the whitespace was indeed introduced by me, but this was in an attempt to fix the taxobox at Jarrah, which was showing the same horrible effects you saw at Banksia, even though it does not use either of the new parameters. Your fix has destroyed the taxobox at Jarrah once again. I'm going to revert your change. I acknowledge that the whitespace is a problem, but until we can find someone "knowledgeable in the arcane templateing arts" to address this problem properly, extra whitespace is preferable to some boxes not working at all. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes, but I thought only Banksia was broken, and I had subst'ed that template out. Anyway, it's been solved now, thanks to Josh. Eugene van der Pijll 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespace problem[edit]

Can somebody who understands templates fix it to remove the unattractive extra whitespace please? The most obvious and simple fix utterly destroys the taxoboxes at Jarrah and Banksia, so please take these pages into account when fixing. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the problem by including empty comments at the start of each footer template. Josh

Thanks Josh. Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSpecies[edit]

Shouldn't everything that links to this template be transwikied to WikiSpecies?the1physicist 17:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSpecies isn't a content fork of Wikipedia. It is a directory, eg. it only includes taxological ranking. --Oldak Quill 18:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

..oh. In that case, I don't see the point of wikispecies since we're duplicating the taxology here.the1physicist 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... you are not alone... see the mailing list around the time of Wikispecies creation :). Pcb21 Pete 08:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On the technical side, it needs more testing and should support bi/trinomial_2 also (as much as i can't stand those keys) as you say. Also the articles on Wikispecies sometimes have slightly different titles to what Wikipedia puts in its taxobox (e.g. when there's synonyms or a subgenus taxon), so the option of overriding the defaults would be needed. Also if there is no bi or trinomial name on Wikipedia, no link should be shown at all to Wikispecies unless an override is given (the default you have there is to link to the English name i think?)

On the policy side of things, I think every rule has its exceptions, and allowing external links from info boxes (especially to reference sites such as Wikispecies) is one such exception which is already common enough. e.g. Casablanca (film) links to IMDB; Brain stem links to various reference sites; and Sony links to stock prices. I support linking to wikispecies from the Taxobox if it can be done neatly.—Pengo 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose adding a line like "wikispecies=<taxon>". This way, one can easily link to WikiSpecies if one wants to, without breaking existing code. And there would be no problem with having different names in wpedia and wspecies. --Sarefo 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works fine for articles about a single taxa, but what about an article about a taxa that is monotypic inside another, such as chimpanzee (which is about Pan and Panina) or orangutan (Ponginae and Pongo), among countless others? I know of at least one article where there are two monotypic levels inside a larger, and one with even more. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See also: Trichoplax.) -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Yeesh!) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a problem at all. This link would provide an easy way to step over into WSpecies, and I think the taxobox is the most intuitive place for it. In the case of Trichoplax, I would eg. write "wikispecies=Placozoa". Then one can enter WSpecies at this point and click down the hierarchy. That's one reason why I wouldn't automatically use an already existing line for linking; this way, you can decide by hand what's the best entry point to WSpecies. And, btw, iirc Treptoplax reptans was probably some chemical preciptitate ;) --Sarefo 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the "?"[edit]

The first time I saw the question mark in the top right corner of the "taxobox" I thought someone had typed it to question the name of the plant (a sort of "is this really correct?" comment). Then when I saw it a few more times I began to think it was some sort of bug or formatting glitch in the template. Now finally I realise that it's a link to some help. Could we change it to read "help" in some suitably small and unobtrusive font? (Or at least make it look like a question mark icon, or graphic, rather than just text.)

I don't understand why this hasn't been changed. A "?" in taxonomy means something, it means there is uncertainty about the taxonomic placement. Wikipedia cannot have every taxonomic box on article pages showing that the taxon's identity is in question.

I just got a newsletter blurb from one of my writers advising readers not to use Wikipedia as a resource because it indicates that Umbellularia californica is in dispute as a name, when in fact it is not!

I thought she was talking about the common name discussion, but, no she pointed out that the species name is in dispute, "See the question mark after the species name in the classification box on the right?"

KP Botany 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also discussed (more recently) at WT:TOL#Information link. See there for my reaction. Eugène van der Pijll 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is still in discussion at that link Eugene posted. Until this is settled, I'm going to remove the {{editprotected}} request template. When it is settled, if there is agreement, and another administrator hasn't made the edit already, please link to the resolution, and put back the template. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unranked[edit]

I'd like to start working the new taxobox into the Primate articles, but there's a hitch preventing me. Several Primate taxoboxes (including the one at Primate itself!) includes an unranked taxon. I recognize the unfeasibility of inserting code into the template between every named taxa for a possible unranked one. Is there another way to get this to work? I've put the new taxobox into Primate, but left it commented out. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before optional parameters were possible, I used some HTML to put within a parameter. It worked as follows:

As you may see, it works :-). Ucucha (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I had tried with wiki syntax. I hadn't thought to "go deeper" and use HTML.... and here I was one of the guys saying we should stick with HTML and not use wiki syntax for taxoboxes.... :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-). Ucucha (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]