Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 6

Amoebozoa
	File:Chaos diffluens.jpg
	Amoeba proteus
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Protista
Phylum:	Amoebozoa; Lühe, 1913 emend.
Subgroups
	Mycetozoa (slime moulds) ; Archamoebae ; Tubulinea ; Flabellinea ; Uncertain placement ; Acanthopodida ; Stereomyxida ; etc.

Amoebozoa
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Protista
Phylum:	Amoebozoa

?Amoebozoa
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Protista;
Phylum:	Amoebozoa;

color parameter[edit]

The "color=" parameter of the taxobox is frequently misunderstood by new editors; for example: "color = Pastel peach in colour with a horizontal red-orange stripe", "color = grizzled brown", and "color = lightgreen/yellowgreen". Perhaps it should be renamed to "taxobox_color" or something like that, to make it clear that we're not talking about the colour of the described organism?

Such a replacement could best be done in three steps:

Change the template to accept both a "color" and a "taxobox_color" parameter.
Change all instances of the template (using a bot, presumably; there are almost 30,000 taxoboxes on wikipedia).
Remove the old "color" parameter.

Good idea? Eugène van der Pijll 14:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have to admit I was once tripped up by it too in my early days. It seems like a lot of hassle to change for little gain though. Also I dont like the name "taxobox_color" (it's still too vague). We could actually remove the tag completely and get the colour from the kingdom, but it would introduce a lot of difficult-to-maintain template code. Otherwise how about just "box_colour"? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also is a lot of hassle to correct all the wrong colors. I have just corrected all remaining errors (~50, I think) from a previous database dump; I will check in a few days how many new errors there are, so that we can get an idea of the size of the problem. But some of the wrong colors were over a month old (for example the one on Cucumber), and uunrecognized colors make the box look really ugly.

Eliminating the parameter is difficult, as there is more than one way to specify the kindom (e.g. "[[Plantae]]" vs. "[[Plant]]ae" vs. "[[Plant|Plantae]]" vs. "[[Plant]]ae<br>monocots"), and they have to be checked every time the colour is used in the taxobox (at least 8 times). Eugène van der Pijll 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also see some editors who understand it controls the box color, but don't know that there's a significance to it. So they go ahead and change it for aesthetic reasons. Any way to make it clearer that the colors are set by kingdom would help. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dutch Wikipedia, we now have a parameter {{{type}}}. In this way, |type=dier produces the colour for animals (pink), |type=plant produces plant colour (lightgreen), etc. This also enabled us to set other variables which had to do with different formats in different groups (for example, in authority notation, which is different among groups governed by different Codes). Maybe this is also an idea for en:. Ucucha 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love a change like this. Nearly my only edits to animal articles on my watchlist are fixing the colors. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the 'type =' parameter, which would stop any chance of people misunderstanding color for the species color, and wouldn't be fouled up in the same way that it could if the kingdom parameter defined the color. The only problem is whether type actually describes what the parameter is enough, but then i can't really see that it would cause much confusion. It may be a fair bit of work, but it was mostly be done by a BOT, and would save a lot of new editors changing the parameter, and then other editors changing it back. C hris_huh ^talk 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea also. I object, however, to the use of the term "type" since that already has meaning in taxonomy. Perhaps "style"? --Aranae 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, i suppose style, or taxobox_style would be better, no confusion with what type could mean then. I think that maybe having the word taxobox (or just box) in the parameter would be useful as this parameter is just about the taxobox itself, rather than the organism(s) itself like conservation_status etc. But then again i guess it is about the organism if we were to have the variables as Animal, Plant, Virus, etc. C hris_huh ^talk 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewamp design[edit]

Even is todays infoboxes are a derivate for the taxobox, the taxobox havn't developed much latly, so I have remade it, found at User:AzaToth/Taxobox. it look more like a normal infobox _→AzaToth 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to emphasize the words "genus", "family" etc. The astronomers do that in their infoboxes and the result doesn't really work, in my opinion. I see that you've removed the colons and lost some important centering as well. Those changes I would argue against. What do you see as the specific improvements? --Yath 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "important centering", I havn't changed any centering at all. More specific improvements is that it's designed in style to other infoboxes, the color is defined by a type parameter and some reducing of the compleixty of the design. _→AzaToth 23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything inside a colored band, such as "{{{name}}}" and "Scientific classification", is not centered in your version. And designing it to match other infoboxes is not in and of itself very compelling, because many other infoboxes (such as the astronomy ones I mentioned) have serious defects. Conformity would be nice, but not at the price of duplicating all that bold text. --Yath 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is centered. th.infobox is centered by default. _→AzaToth 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screenshot of non-centered text. Note how "Scientific classification" is left-justified. --Yath 08:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how I see it: http://imagesocket.com/view/centeredce8.png _→AzaToth 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Yath's complaints, the "conforming" infobox outline/dividers clashes with the color scheme used by taxoboxes, and is difficult for folks with colorblindness. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by '"conforming" infobox outline/dividers'? As I'm using the same color scheme as the original Taxobox. _→AzaToth 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are using the conforming one, not the thin black line. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "conforming" code part is making this a child of "infobox". Please don't do this. I will fight tooth and nail against it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the taxobox isn't an infobox? _→AzaToth 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the informal sense that it's a box of information. No, it is not of the class infobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current taxobox doesn't give any thin black lines on my system, and actually looks worse than the infobox border. If we need a particular look, it should probably be specified, and we could do that overtop the infobox class so that people can customize other aspects. Is there any reason not to take this approach? For instance, how close is this sample to how the tables are supposed to look? Josh

Looks like thin black lines to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In AOL the borders are not thin black lines but uneven grey lines. Although in FireFox they display correctly, of course. Mgiganteus1 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a screenshot. Mgiganteus1 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Looks very different from mine.... and yes, I use Firefox. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to topic[edit]

If we are trying to get back into topic, I have changed my proposal a bit now, and here is a look of the changes:

Old

New

→

Amoebozoa
Amoeba proteus Amoeba proteus
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Protista
Phylum:	Amoebozoa Lühe, 1913 emend.
Subgroups
Mycetozoa (slime moulds) Archamoebae Tubulinea Flabellinea Uncertain placement Acanthopodida Stereomyxida etc.

_→AzaToth 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've mixed up the line styles, lost the "?" in the title section, made it wider, and bolded and shifted the taxon ranks. All of these issues need to be addressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the ?, dunno where it went, I'll add it. about the width, 23en is the de facto standard width for an infobox, and by using that width, it fits better to wikipedia as a whole. Why I keep the ranks to be left aligned, is that people usually have the habit to read left → right, they look bold because they are defined at titles now, not ordninary cells (makes it easier for blind people to comprehend the infobox) _→AzaToth 11:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

200px is the standard width for a taxobox; that's the standard size of the images in them. Larger images will push the taxobox bigger, but the taxobox shouldn't be larger than the picture. Non-bold ranks is standard because they are not the subject of the article. And the current standard of the ranks is sdtill left → right, so I don't see what you're trying to improve by shifting them farther from the info they are linked to. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the ranks should not be bold because they are not the information being presented. And because there is no need for them to be bold. Editors need to understand that prominent elements of a web page need to be kept uncommon, lest we desensitize readers to such things and lose their value altogether. I mean if we bold every taxon, we'll have increase the visibility of the featured element "Amoebozoa" a bit. Like making it bright orange on a pale blue background. And on each side we could put animated GIFs of arrows pointing inward. And so forth.--Yath 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good change: some beveling around the title is gone

Bad: forced wider, bold ranks, ranks moved up against the left edge, help link gone

Neutral: border is gray

--Yath 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bevel[edit]

I only just noticed it with the comparison, but it looks heaps better without the bevelled edges around the title box. What is the reason for the bevelling (I don't know anything about colour blindness, but it is a perfectly valid reason if that is so)? Can we change it? I don't like any of the other changes. Thanks --liquidGhoul 12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with the removal of the bevel. I don't know how it got there in the first place. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "display:block;" from my test taxobox, and it removes the bevel, but also the line on the right. Check out my test page. Any idea why? --liquidGhoul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your tests, but upon looking at it again, I think it must be something to do with the question mark. I don't know how that affects the border, but it isn't there anymore, and I only removed one thing! --liquidGhoul 00:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I remove "position:relative;" from the background style, and the replaced the line down the side. I also noticed that the question marks went to the top right corner of the article (where the FA star goes). Why don't we just right aling the question mark? Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a solution, and it can be seen on the above links to my test pages. Could people please see if it works for their browser/OS. It works on Firefox in Linux. Thanks --liquidGhoul 12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderbar! Firefox/XP checking in. Looks hokie-dokie-hay-oh-kay heeyah! (Don't mind me... I'm on 3 weeks with no coffee.....) UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change it now, as there seems to be no objections. If anyone has technical issues with it, post here (or if admin, revert) and we will try and sort it out. If you have style issues, post here. Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that! —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --liquidGhoul 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colors[edit]

Every so often, I see reversions because of changes of the color of the taxobox. I know that they are differentiated by means of the Kingdoms, so why not try to set up a parameter that makes the Kingdom parameter influence the color parameter? —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion #color parameter above. You can't really use the existing regnum param. In the new design by AzaToth, there is a type parameter, which determines the color, which is one way to solve the problem. Eugène van der Pijll 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trend[edit]

I have noticed that when that large amount of work into changing the conservation status code, the trend was also included (as trend=). As a result, I have been adding it to the taxoboxes I create. However, it isn't coded in, and it is therefore not used by the taxobox. Was there a plan to use this data, and will we be able to include it somehow? Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eu interwiki[edit]

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Taxotaula infotaula. Thanks. Berria · (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Joelito (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status links... again[edit]

This must have been raised before but couldn't the individual conservation statuses be linked to the relevant page. So if the species is listed as Endangered the word endangered would be linked to Endangered_species. All of these separate status pages are linked in the Conservation_status template, so it is be easy to navigate between them already. C hris_huh ^talk 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. However, the individual conservation status articles are not all in a great state. (Which is probably why your suggestion hasn't been done sooner). "Extinct", for example, makes little or no mention of "recent extinction" (i.e. what the IUCN defines "extinct" as) and Vulnerable species has little description at all. Also, none of the attached lists are anywhere near complete.—Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with Extinct is that it just talks about actual extinction, and isn't really designed as a description of the IUCN status. Maybe we could work making a page for each status (i know there already are them, but fill them out with more of what IUCN really describes them as). I don't think a list of species that fall under that status should be on the page as that would mean a large page and a lot of updating. Why couldn't there just be categories for each one that the taxobox automatically adds it to and then have a link from each status page to that category.

Having said that, i suppose we could actually just have the links in the taxobox go straight to the category, which will have a short description of the status at the top and a link to the full article. C hris_huh ^talk 11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box border again[edit]

I've been saying this for a long time. Can we please change the box's border color to the standard #aaa Wikipedia color. The black border looks very harsh and inconsistent. Anybody agree? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. The "standard" Wikipeia color is very difficult for color-blind, especially with the taxobox colors. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]