Template talk:Taxonbar/Archive 5

{{{name}}}
{{{name}}}
Grape (Vitis)
VIVC number	22741

This 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.

Archive 1

←

Ichnotaxa and ootaxa

Do ichnotaxa and ootaxa get taxonbars? They have {{ichnobox}} and {{oobox}}, but don't really have their ranks in Wikidata. --Nessie (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In principle, yes. In practice, probably not so much; Wikidata may not have any IDs for them. However Grallator is an ichnogenus with a taxonbar (IDs for Fossilworks and IRMNG); Tom.Reding added the taxonbar there, so I would assume he added taxonbars to any other ichno- and ootaxa that had IDs in Wikidata. Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, so on Wikidata Grallator is an "instance of ichnotaxon" with "taxon rank genus." Is that what is the best practice, or should we try more for "instance of fossil taxon" with "taxon rank ichnogenus?" --Nessie (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have minimal knowledge about this, so grain of salt here. But based solely on the numbers, there are currently only 56 uses of ichnotaxon (Q2568288) on Wikidata, and 59,626 uses of fossil taxon (Q23038290). From a practicality perspective, I don't think there is much Wikidata support for creating (for the sake of instance of (P31)) a mirrored set of ranks with 'ichno' appended to them (existence for the sake of interwikis notwithstanding). So I think the correct entry for Grallator (Q23691966) at this time would be instance of (P31) fossil taxon (Q23038290), and taxon rank (P105) genus (Q34740).

Whether or not instance of (P31) should be fossil taxon (Q23038290) or ichnotaxon (Q2568288) is a different story, and might be up for debate (I haven't looked for previous discussions anywhere). ichnotaxon (Q2568288) was created in January 2013 and has a dozen language sitelinks, while fossil taxon (Q23038290) was created in March 2016 with only 1 sitelink, which is just a redirect to a dab. Presumably, fossil taxon is easier/more intuitive to put into WD, but I don't know the background.

I did include {{Ichnobox}} & {{Oobox}} in my placement of {{Taxonbar}}, but only if the WD page contained at least 1 taxon ID. With all the tracking cat improvements since then, and to match its usage on the non-fossil side, {{Taxonbar}} should definitely be on all of them (will check for/do that tomorrow). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that any taxa that has taxon IDs would benefit from a {{taxonbar}}. I guess i was sorta more asking how we wanted to or should implement them with WikiData and all. I know there are a few maintenance categories that check pages with taxonbars for certain entries in Wikidata so didn't want to cause a flare up in one of those unnecessarily.--Nessie (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata seems to lack identifier data for a lot of fossil taxa. I'm surprised that fossilworks isn't more systematically included. Jts1882 | talk 12:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ichnotaxa and fossil taxa are not the same thing; Wikidata items for ichnotaxa should not be treated as instances of fossil taxon. Although ichnofossils are a subcategory of fossils, ichnotaxa are not a subcategory of fossil taxa, since the ICommissionZN doesn't accept ichnotaxa named after 1930 as taxa at all. The same applies to ootaxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So in the example above, we would want instance of (P31) ichnotaxon (Q2568288), but then do we want taxon rank (P105) genus (Q34740) or do we need to create new ranks on Wikidata like ichnogenus? --Nessie (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert in this area – Ashorocetus, Abyssal, Dr.Bastedo and Smith609 are some of the editors who worked in the area of ichno- and ootaxa, so are better placed than me to comment. The system we use here for ichno- and ootaxa uses completely separate ranks, as per {{Anglicise rank}}, and as far as I know, this is the correct approach. For example, the egg of an unknown extinct species may be placed in a particular ichnogenus, ichnofamily, etc., but when the species is identified, the animal itself will have its own quite separate genus, family, etc. Ichno- and oo-ranks are just convenient grouping methods; they don't have the phylogenetic implications of a real taxonomy, hence the description as "parataxonomy". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ichnogenus and similar ranks are completely separate and parallel to regular genera. Abyssal (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally (I believe starting in 2008-ish) paleontologists try to make ootaxa that correlate to clades (though not necessarily of the corresponding rank), but this is usually not feasible so they are best thought of as separate. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 18:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent property proposals (2018)

Due to the large # of recent property proposals, I'm deciding to keep track of them here, so that people can voice their yea/nay opinions. I'll go through them in the near future as I have in the past otherwise. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Under discussion

eFloraSA id
~~CETAF specimen ID~~
ODNR Division of Wildlife ID ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Recently created

Done:

Parameter name is unclear, suggestions welcome:

Hidden by default (!English):

Not done (do not appear useful):

Info Flora ID (P6098)^{English language link doesn't work}
Sea Slug Forum ID (P6051)^{Scientifically useful?}
Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic (P5841)^{IUCN property is good enough. We don't need 300 separate properties.}
Wild Herps ID (P6036)^{"This site is my combination life list, photo gallery, and notebook of reptile and amphibians (aka "herps")"...}

Properties found via this Wikidata query, that aren't listed above nor in Module:Taxonbar/conf

Done:

Parameter name is unclear, suggestions welcome:

Hidden by default (!English):

YTela Botanica ID (P3105)^{French language}
YNederlands Soortenregister ID (P3405)^{Dutch language}
YDORIS ID (P4630)^{French language}
YWiki Aves bird ID (P4664)^{Portuguese language; *has* English link, but it's not working}
YFloraCatalana ID (P5179)^{Catalan language; uses Google translate to translate...}
YCzech NDOP taxon ID (P5263)^{Czech language}

Not done (do not appear useful):

Bradley and Fletcher checklist number (P1743)^{UK moths; website appears to be broken}
Agassiz checklist number (P1744)^{also UK moths; not individually linkable, links only to a big list...}
German cattle breed ID (P2024)^{links only to a big list with no other information}
FAO 2007 genetic resource ID (P3380)^{Broken; based on Wikidata property examples, it doesn't appear useful anyway}
iNaturalist observation ID (P5683)^{Individual observations; use iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151) instead}
Enciclovida ID (P5864)^{No formatter URL available; Spanish language; related to CONABIO, which is currently hidden by default}

Property proposals discussion

Is there a tool that can search all these databases at once, or are we just relying on SuccuBot? I can't even remember more than a 6-7 of these when i'm looking at a wikidata page, and WD only suggests a few. --Nessie (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nessie, the above relies mostly on notifications from {{d:Ping project}}, but this is a more exhaustive Wikidata query for all Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390), which I'll go through soon. If you know of any that are not in that query, but should be, please list them here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Added 35 possibly-overlooked property IDs. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

These 3 stand out to me as ones that should be added ASAP (not sure how difficult it will be to get the first two working).

Amphibian Species of the World ID (P5354)^{ID needs trimming}
The Reptile Database ID (P5473)^{ID URLs need finagling to work}
APNI ID (P5984)^{Australian Plant Name Index}Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Done, with no modifications required to the main module. The only (small) issue is that The Reptile Database ID (P5473) values like genus=Xenodon&species=neuwiedii are truncated from the last =, so they display as neuwiedii. With a little bit of extra code, however, I can make it so both genus & species appear. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

GRIN parameter conflict

There is a param name conflict between

GRIN URL (P1421), the Germplasm Resources Information Network, existing in {{Taxonbar}}, parameter name |GRIN=, and
Global Raptor Information Network ID (P6045), which is in the list above and not yet added to {{Taxonbar}},

so 1 or both need to change if both are to be used by {{Taxonbar}}. My only suggestion would be using |GRIN-URL= & |GRIN-ID=, but this may be a confusing. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Species file parameter unification

There are a bunch of various species file IDs, some existing and some yet to be made. Any opinions on how to unify them? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't *think* there are cases of overlap between Species Files, i.e. the possibility of two links to different Species File websites in one taxonbar, so would it be possible to just label them all in the taxonbar as "SpeciesFile"? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This wouldn't work b/c each species file uses slightly different URLs. There would have to be some form of detection, which is opening up a can of worms, let alone adding many lines of code and otherwise unnecessary Wikidata queries to the module to make 1 parameter work. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The only species file property currently used by the module is Phasmida Species File ID (P4855) via |psf=, which is not a scalable naming convention, due to the imminent parameter name conflicts that will arise (i.e. Cockroach Species File ID (P6052) & Coreoidea Species File ID (P6053) above can't both be |csf=).

The available options that I see take the form of either:

|coreoidea-species-file=
|coreoidea-sf=
|sf-Coreoidea=
|species-file-coreoidea=

with or without hyphens/spaces, as long as they're consistent. Of course we can have aliases too, but ideally no more than 1 alias per species file. Does anyone have a preference? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Will default to #1 otherwise, since it's the most straightforward. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I decided on |Coreoidea Species File= since I wanted the param to match the display. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

iNaturalist

iNaturalist taxon pages are already incorporated into the taxonbar with iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151). The other parameter, iNaturalist observation ID (P5683), is for individual observations, e.g. "user andrawaag saw Eutricha capensis in South Africa on July 24th, 2018"—iNaturalist observation ID = 14692339, which wouldn't be relevant for taxonbars. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Parameter names

By "Parameter name is unclear, suggestions welcome" do you mean what it should be shortened to? A few I would suggest:

Michigan Flora ID (P6103) — MIFlora
Plant Finder ID (Missouri Botanical Garden) (P6034) – PlantFinder
Red List of South African Plants ID (P6056) – SANBI-RedList (too long?)

—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

MiFlora would cause less confusion, but is still ambiguous with Minnesota & Missouri. |MichiganFlora= would solve that, but it is a little long.

Plant Finder ID (Missouri Botanical Garden) (P6034) is the name of Missouri Botanical Garden's web search function, which only includes plants grown in their Kemper Center display gardens. So I don't think it deserved the the lofty, world-wide implications associated with "(The) Plant Finder".

SANBI I think is ok. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Minnesota Flora would be MNFlora.

MoBotPF? MoBot is a common abbreviation for the Missouri Botanical Garden. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Missouri would be MO, or FoM, for Flora of Missouri. "MoBot" alone could refer to any of their databases, e.g. Tropicos, eFloras.[1] —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, |MoBot= changed to |MoBotPF=. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

FoAo2

{ 'FoAo2', ':Flora of Australia (new)', 6756 }, I am hoping to be able to add the new flora of Australia online ids (wikidata propery d:Property:P6756) to the taxonbar (preferably automatically but if necessary by hand), but to do so some shorthand needs to be created. Thanks in advance, MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Done - let me know if any issues. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Tom.Reding:. Will do. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In wikidata the Flora of Australia ID (new) entry for Scaevola basedowii has Scaevola basedowii. The entry links perfectly to Flora of Australia at the new and very different site. I just checked Scaevola basedowii and very pleasingly there is an entry for FoAO2 but it reads as basedowii Scaevola basedowii and fails to link correctly. (Very pleased nonetheless.) Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Thanks so much, @Tom.Reding:. MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2019

This edit request to Module:Taxonbar/conf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like the ID, ATRF ID (Australian Tropical Rainforest ID) (P6904) to the list of IDs to be seen automatically in the taxonbar (when present in Wikidata). MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC) MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

SA Flora ID

The wikidata property, SA Flora ID (P6933), would also be a useful addition to the taxonbar for Australian Plants.It does not always have descriptions but when they exist they are very helpful. (It is now the case that most, if not all, SA Flora IDs have been uploaded to wikidata.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Still hoping for a response on this one. I am hoping it will alert Australian wikipedians to the information at SA Flora) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: I've added it as eFloraSA. At the moment it is linked it to the Australian section on list of electonic floras, as I didn't want to add a redlink. Perhsps you would like to create an article describing this electronic flora list. Jts1882 | talk 06:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Jts1882: The link should be made to State Herbarium of South Australia as it is the Herbarium responsible. (I have added some text there to make the relationship clearer.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, for this. @Tom.Reding:, @Jts1882:. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

From QID parameter

What is the best practice for the taxonbar from parameter in the case where there is just one Wikidata item pointing to the article? Explicitly include the from parameter? The practice seems to differ from the case with the authoritycontrol template but I can see that duplicates in that case are unlikely... Perhaps this should be mentioned as part of the usage guideline. Shyamal (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shyamal: best practice is to always include the |from= parameter when a linked Wikidata item exists. This is mentioned in Category:Taxonbars without from parameter (1), which is kept low, and never gets above a few hundred unless many pages are missing the requisite Wikidata link. The category name purposefully doesn't use the word "missing" so as not to overstate the importance of the parameter (it's still important, but the tracking cat falls under the #Maintenance desired /doc section, as opposed to the Maintenance required section). Adding the parameter is easily done by more experienced editors, and it was decided (somewhere in the talk archives) not to require this of the average editor. I wouldn't object to a small, explicit blurb in the /doc though, near where |from= is first used. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly urge editors to be explicit. As we have discussed many times now, the structure of taxon items at Wikidata doesn't match ours. To get as many of the interlanguage wiki links displayed as possible, you frequently have to connect our article to an item with a different name. Explicitly using |from= to the correctly named Wikidata item may be the only way then to make the taxonbar display correctly, since there's currently no agreement at Wikidata as to how to handle synonyms other than basionyms: there are at least three different methods in use, and often synonyms aren't linked at all. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the examples and text accordingly. Feel free to improve it. Shyamal (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ecocrop

Hi. If I may, I would like to request to link the Ecocrop entry to this Ecocrop page. I was directed to raise my request on this Talk page. I am not familiar with how templates work, so I hope someone could help with the modification. Let me know if you have questions or if this is not the correct page to ask for the template edit. Best regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Jts1882 | talk 12:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much! Darwin Naz (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not shown in mobile view

Not sure if this is well-known or even by design but someone pointed out to me that the taxonbar footer does not show up in mobile views. Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Many features don't show in mobile view, including navigation templates and categories. This is a design feature of the MediaWiki MobileFrontend extension, it seems, and not under editors' control. Since the left side bar doesn't show either in mobile view, navigation is limited. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing Wikispecies as a taxon identifier

Wikispecies is not a database and it doesn't have unique persistent identifiers for taxons. It just has pages that are named for the taxons just like Wikipedia, Commons, etc. We should be using the {{Sister project links}} or {{Wikispecies}} templates to link to it, not {{Taxonbar}}, IMO. I propose that it be removed as a parameter from Taxonbar. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: do you also want the link the the commons removed? Tachnically both have a unique identifier on WikiData. --Nessie (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL: If linking to Commons is an option, it isn't documented. Neither of them belong in this template though as neither use a unique persistent identifier or act as a database. This template isn't just to list external links for a taxon. It's purpose is to provide a reference to all the database IDs for a taxon (similar to the Authority Control template for people). The unique persistent identifier that we (Wikimedia) assign to taxons is the Wikidata ID. That's the only Wikimedia identifier that should be listed here. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As lot of articles use the {{Wikispecies}} and {{Commons and category}} templates placed near the {{taxonbar}}, it is an unnecessary redundancy. I'd agree with the removal or not automatically displaying them. Jts1882 | talk 06:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Wikispecies link can show up in three places in desktop view: in the left hand navigation bar, inline via the template, and in the taxonbar. I deplore this redundancy, and had been removing the templates for both Wikispecies and Commons, until it was pointed out to me that these are the only links that show in mobile view, now the most common way of reading Wikipedia, it seems. I think there needs to be a wider discussion of this issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that {{Wikispecies}} is only used on 41,000 pages, or about 10% of {{Taxonbar}}'s 395,000 pages. {{Wikispecies-inline}} has ~8,000 transclusions. Removing {{Taxonbar}}'s Wikispecies link to the vast majority of pages without a Wikispecies link at the bottom, and after only a 2 day discussion period is pretty careless.

The only consolation is that, apparently nav bars don't show up in mobile view, thus skewing favor in the direction of {{Wikispecies}}. Nevertheless, there should be a period of overlap while the remaining ~88% of {{Taxonbar}} pages receive some sort of {{Wikispecies}} footer. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tom.Reding. Also, I don;t see why links to other wikis should be removed from the taxonbar. --Nessie (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Given those numbers, it is clearly premature to remove wikispecies from the taxonbar. It could also be an argument to stop using the wikispecies template in desktop view (could it be hidden via CSS?) as taxonbar is more widely deployed and they appear in the same part of the article page. Whatever the final decision, the recent change removing wikispecies should be reverted pending further discussion. Jts1882 | talk 06:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I too agree with Tom. The issue of the Wikispecies and Commons/Commons category templates and their appearance in the left hand bar (in desktop view) needs wider discussion, and we should not change taxonbar prematurely. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 August 2019

This edit request to Module:Taxonbar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove support for Wikispecies parameter, as it's not a database. See discussion above. Specifically, this would mean removing lines 19 to 27 from Module:Taxonbar, changing line 28 to if item.claims[property] == nil then. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Would you mind syncing the sandbox and then making the change there? Feel free to re-flip the answered bit at that time. --Izno (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: Sandbox updated. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe this change should be undone, as per the comments above. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

collapsed when multiple entries

When three links are provided to data items, the bar automatically adopts a collapsed state, eg. Western yellow robin display of subspecies. Is this intentional and desirable? My current preference is not collapsed, weighted I suppose for the nav bars I use and those I hope to ignore. cygnis insignis 05:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that is either a setting passed to Module:Navbox or a default setting after reaching 3+ rows, so it can probably be easily changed. I prefer uncollapsed as well. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Done - default row count to collapse raised from 3 to 4. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

New Taxonbar cleanup category proposal

Lately I'm working on different tasks around Taxonbar including adding it to ToL related pages which lacks that template. To find those page I'm using following search query (nothing complicated but in most cases results are valid - at this moment around 2,9k entries):

-hastemplate:"Taxonbar" hastemplate:"taxobox" "Scientific classification"

I thought it will be handy to have cleanup category based on matched articles named for example: "Pages with missing Taxonbar (possible)". I'm not sure if it's appropriate place to post that proposal but if I'm wrong I hope that someone will guide me to the right place. SimekOne (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If I follow your search correctly, it only picks up artices with {{Taxobox}} and no {{Taxonbar}}. It won't pick up articles using automated taxobox templates, e.g. {{Automatic taxobox}}, {{Speciesbox}}. Jts1882 | talk 08:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Change the second use of hastemplate to hastemplate:"Taxobox/core" – hastemplate picks up all uses, direct or indirect, and all the taxobox templates, manual or automated, use {{Taxobox/core}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a Lua solution to this - getContent() can be used to look at the transcluding page contents (unparsed, as it looks when you're editing it). My guess is that there are more pages with auto/taxobox/etc. that are missing a taxonbar than vice versa? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: the original search over manual taxoboxes gets 2,897 hits, the search using {{Taxobox/core}} gets 5,929, so, yes, there are slightly more pages with automated taxoboxes without a taxonbar. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: excellent. {{Taxobox/core}} is not Lua, but a module/template combo can be written (I could do it in the next few days) to grab the contents of the page on which it was transcluded and assign the new tracking cat if needed. This can then be appended to {{Taxobox/core}}. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@SimekOne, Jts1882, and Peter coxhead:

done via Category:Taxobox articles missing a taxonbar (0).

@Tom.Reding, Jts1882, and Peter coxhead: Thank you so much for suggestions and addressing issue it so fast! But ATM created category contains only 550+ articles while original query and updated one (using "Taxobox/core") returns respectively 2,800+ and 5,850+ articles - what is the origin of such difference in articles count? SimekOne (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The categories take time to fill (Tom or Peter can explain why). There were only a couple of hundred when I looked earlier. Jts1882 | talk 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: That answer is good enough, I wasn't sure if propagation/index time is responsible for that or query was updated in some way, thank you! SimekOne (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if it would be more appropriate to move this discussion & all further discussions to Template talk:Taxobox, as this is a modification to {{Taxobox/core}}? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is directly conflicting with Category:Taxonbars on possible non-taxon pages (i.e. horse), so we should be clear whether or not the consensus has changed for the scope of {{Taxonbar}}. Alternatively, those instance of (P31) checks can be used to pre-filter Category:Taxobox articles missing a taxonbar, so that these 2 categories don't give conflicting advice and bounce pages between them. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant, but on Wikidata horse is a subclass of "group of organisms known by one particular common name" (with no instance of statement), whereas most domestic animals (dog, house cat, donkey) are instances of "group of organisms known by one particular common name". Most of the domestic animals I looked at are taxa (rightly or wrongly) so why shouldn't they have a taxonbar? Jts1882 | talk 07:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, since horse (Q726) has no instance of (P31), it would fail the Taxonbars on possible non-taxon pages exclusion criteria and then be placed into that catgory. Many common-name pages actually comprise a taxonomically ambiguous group of organisms and so they are not suitable for a {{Taxonbar}}. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just as we have Category:Taxonbars on possible non-taxon pages, I think the current contents of Category:Taxobox articles missing a taxonbar should be moved to Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar, to convey the above concern. If/when the Taxonbars on possible non-taxon pages exclusion criteria are codified in Module:Taxonbar/exists (or something more appropriate like Module:Taxonbar/candidate), then pages failing that filter (e.g. they are an instance of (P31) taxon (Q16521), and use {{Taxobox/core}}) can populate Category:Taxobox articles missing a taxonbar. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There are many Paraphyletic groups, polyphyletic groups, and common names that will never resolve to anything one could put in a taxonbar. --Nessie (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The taxoboxes using {{paraphyletic group}} and {{polyphyletic group}} don't use {{taxobox/core}} so won't get picked up by the category check. Perhaps the category checking should be added. If done in the module, it should be possible to check for a suitable wikidata item and only add to the category if there is one for the article. Jts1882 | talk 07:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Done on {{Taxobox/core}} via {{Taxonbar/candidate}}/Module:Taxonbar/candidate.

@Jts1882: feel free to use it Module:Biota infobox. By definition, most, if not all, {{Paraphyletic group}}s will be put into Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar, but there are only ~111 transclusions of that module, so it wouldn't hurt I suppose. You would know where best to place it (my first guess would be in Module:Biota infobox/core in p._core). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I split the code so Module:Biota infobox/core should emulate {{taxobox/core}} as closely as possible. So it could be added there or it might be better to add it in the parameter submodule which has a function for adding categories. I'll take a look and add it somewhere.

Just to confirm. Your module looks for a wikidata item on the article page (if none, returns empty string), then checks for an acceptable "instance of" wikidata property, returning Category:Taxobox articles missing a taxonbar if an acceptable value is found or Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar (5) if not. So, for instance, porcupine gets the latter as it is instance of "group of organisms known by one particular common name". Jts1882 | talk 14:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I see a lot of articles on my watchlist getting the {{Taxonbar}} template added and no taxonbar shown because there are no items on wikidata. I think this is the desired behaviour, despite the extra overhead, as future taxoonomy items on wikidata will be automatically included, but I thought it worth mentioning. Jts1882 | talk 19:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup category future follow up

A month or three from now, Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar (5) should be looked at to see what was added/subtracted to/from it since now. I've taken a category snapshot now and will periodically throughout the intervening time. If there are "maybe"s getting legitimate {{Taxonbar}}s then the cat I think is worth keeping. If not, and it appears to be an ever-growing repository for "probably not"s, then Category:Taxobox articles missing a taxonbar is sufficient (and I think the ultimate intention here). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

At the start of tracking, Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar contained 1017 pages. Now, ~2.5 months later, 799 of those pages remain, while 218 were removed (e.g. by receiving a {{Taxonbar}}). At least 390 new pages entered the category after the start of tracking (more frequent snapshots would have raised that #, as pages flow undetected through the category between the 9 successive snapshots), of which 120 currently remain.

I'd like to see that 800 'remain' figure go down programatically by ignoring pages which we would never want get a {{Taxonbar}}. For example:

What 'title masks' can we use, like "List of ...", to automatically exclude pages from Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar? (disease, species subgroup?)
What instance of (P31) values (or some other property) can we use to automatically exclude pages from Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar?
Something else?

This would be applied in Module:Taxonbar/candidate. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I added a few restrictions:

Ignore "List of ..." pages
Ignore pages with 0 acceptable instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279), and 1 or more of the following unacceptables:

This has gotten the 'stagnant' # of Category:Taxobox articles possibly missing a taxonbar down to 614. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

NSWFlora

NSWFlora redirects to National Herbarium of New South Wales where the lead paragraph now mentions PlantNet, the online database. I am hoping that the taxonbar will now reflect this with a link to the article. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Done I added the link to NSWFlora so if it ever becomes an article or there is a better redirect the change will be automatic. I assume this is preferable to hardcoding a link to National Herbarium of New South Wales. Jts1882 | talk 07:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks. Thanks, very much, @Jts1882:. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

NZPCN ID (P7496)

The IDs for NZPCN (New Zealand Plant Conservation Network) are extremely informative for NZ plants. I would love to see these IDs added to the taxonbar, as it would make things much easier for article writers and for readers who have finally worked out how useful the taxonbar is. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: I do hope this is in the throes of being considered? MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As there is a wikidata item for New Zealand Plant Conservation Network (Q2222100) and property (NZPCN ID (P7496)), I see no reason why not. I can do this tomorrow. Can you give an example page with a wikidata entry to test it on? Jts1882 | talk 21:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Carmichaelia stevensonii (And thanks very much, @Jts1882:) MargaretRDonald (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Done Jts1882 | talk 17:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks, @Jts1882:. (One more request: Is there any chance of shortening the full name of New Zealand Plant Conservation Network in the taxonbar, to its shorter version which has a correct redirect, NZPCN?) Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops. I should have done that. While looking at these entries, have you a suggestion for a Wikipedia link for NZOR, which stands out as the only one on the Carmichaelia stevensonii taxonbar without one? Jts1882 | talk 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This clearly is an instance of WP:REDYES as an article should probably be written. Isn't New Zealand Organisms Register a part of Landcare Research? Then maybe {{R from subtopic}} and {{R with possibilities}}. --Nessie (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Order of entries

I think that one of the following should apply:

the entries in the taxonbar should be kept in the order specified in the wikitext
the scientific name corresponding to the article title should come first.

As an example, I've just moved Lomaria discolor from Blechnum discolor (because WP:PLANTS agreed that we would use the PPG I classification system for ferns). The taxonbar still shows Blechnum discolor first, which to me looks wrong and undermines the move.

Now I could fix this at Wikidata by:

moving all the language wiki links to Lomaria discolor (Q17264103) – but this would be wrong if other wikis are deliberately choosing to use alternative fern classifications (it's a hotly disputed issue at present)
moving the enwiki link only to Lomaria discolor (Q17264103) – but this would lose all the other language wiki links in the article sidebar. (This is what I am usually forced to do to obtain an acceptable taxonbar.)

A minimal change would be to add a parameter like |preserve_order=yes which kept the entries in parameter order. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't switching |from1= and |from2= do what you want? Jts1882 | talk 10:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: yes! I didn't know that.

But it's counter-intuitive that to get the order Q17264103, Q118891, Q17258659 in the article you have to use {{Taxonbar|from1=Q118891|from2=Q17264103|from3=Q17258659}}!

I don't believe that this is right. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ironically it seems to be the code designed to move the page title to the top that scrambles the order (from line 575). Disable that and you get the order set by the |from= parameters. The interaction between using the page title, Wikidata and |from= parameters is too convoluted for me to follow. Jts1882 | talk 11:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Wikidata and English Wikipedia are still out of synch from the page move. The Wikidata item points to Blechnum discolor on Wikidata and that is causing it to be moved to the top. Jts1882 | talk 11:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Blechnum discolor (Q118891) has pointed to Lomaria discolor since 08:30 UTC, according to its page history.

But I agree that the code is too convoluted to follow! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the Wikidata items so Lomaria discolor on Wikidata points to the English Wikipedia article. I've also switch the taxonbar parameters to indicate the order shown and now it works as expected. Jts1882 | talk 13:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: no, that's not right. I know this is possible, but what happens then is that the article loses all the links to the other language wikis. I've undone this change. Please read my second set of bullet points above.

The fundamental problem, as discussed multiple times before, is the bad decision by Wikidata only to allow 1:1 links between wiki articles and Wikidata items, which often forces us to link to the 'wrong' Wikidata item.

Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I realise the one to one correspondence between Wikidata and each language Wikipedia is a problem, but I think we should be consistent with Wikidata and link the article to the correct Wikidata item. It is confusing if the Wikidata Item link goes to a different item when Wikidata has one at the correct name. If we want the other language links then we can get them from the wikidata of the other items linked in the taxonbar.

An alternative would be to extend the taxonbar to add a column or row for other Wikipedia articles. The taxobar already gets all the identifiers from Wikidata for the three (in this case) Wikidata items. It could get all the language Wikipedia links from the three items and display them somehow (e.g. in bottom row or right column, perhaps with a collapse option). Jts1882 | talk 16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm totally sympathetic with your aim, but I doubt there would be a consensus to treat taxon articles differently from others. The interwiki links are supposed to be in the sidebar for all articles.

The 1:1 problem is far from being just a taxon issue. Berry and Berry (botany) is an example that comes to mind, but I know from previous discussions that there are other examples in areas where I don't edit, like history and culture. There's simply no a priori reason for articles to be 1:1 across languages and culture.

The reality is that unless the people at Wikidata agree to change (and there's absolutely no sign of that), we're stuck with linking to the most used term across wikis. My point is that the order in the taxonbar should not be influenced by this choice. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

VIVC Identifier for grape varieties

Moved from Template talk:Authority control § VIVC Identifier for grape varieties

Hello, this all seems arcane in the extreme, but is this the place to ask about adding the VIVC identifier to the authority control template for grape varieties? For example, the Roussin de Morgex article (Q167228) has the template in there ready to go, but currently displays nothing. I've left a similar question on the VIVC identifier (P3904) talk page. It seems the identifier has an issue about "multiple values" and I'm not sure if that's related or relevant. Any help/advice appreciated! — Jon (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: this is a better place to ask about grape variety IDs ({{Taxonbar}} is probably not appropriate either, but at least you're in the ballpark of people best suited to help).

I see {{Infobox grape variety}} already includes the VIVC ID. That can be made to automatically pull the ID from WD, if it exists there. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding:: How? Jon (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: who will probably be kind enough to do this for you, if there is consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jon, Tom.Reding, and Andy: I've implemented it in the sandbox Template:Infobox grape variety/sandbox while you look for consensus. For Roussin de Morgex (Q167228) it returns this:

I've temporarily switched the Roussin de Morgex article to use the sandbox version as a demonstration. Perhaps you can try it by previewing in a few articles and seeing how it works. It will only fetch from Wikidata if there is no locally supplied parameter. Is there another template where you want the functionality or is it just the infobox? --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

ICTV links not working

I've tried clicking on a few links to ICTV in the taxonbar, and get a "Sorry, Page Not Found" error. For example, the taxonbars at Circoviridae, Carrot mottle virus. Has the ID system at ICTV changed? I had a look at the website, and couldn't see any numbers in the ICTV virus ID format "00.001" as stated on WikiData here. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks. DferDaisy (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The links go to http://ictvdb.bio-mirror.cn/ICTVdB/00.078.0.01.004.htm it looks like that machine is just giving a "Apache Tomcat/8.0.44" page, so it's possible they're upgrading or restoring it. RDBrown (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A bit odd that the identifier points to a Chinese mirror. The Wikipedia article on the ICTV says they decided to suspend the database in 2011, although this could be out of date information. — Jts1882 | talk 08:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've dug a bit more, and @NessieVL: was looking into this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Viruses/Archive_3#ICTV_virus_ID and at d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Archive/2019/09, where someone replied saying the decimal IDs used in Wikidata are outdated. It looks like the ICTV website has a "taxnode_id" to identify each taxon, but that is shown only in the URL, e.g.,for carrot mottle virus: [2], and it is not shown in the taxon record or in the master species list, which is a downloadable spreadsheet. Could someone remove the ICTV id from the taxonbar while we figure out how to link a virus to the ICTV website? (I known nothing about templates so don't know how that would be done). Thanks. DferDaisy (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you download the current Excel file, you'll find the (last) column Taxon History URL which contains the taxnode_id, probably current at the time of file creation.

For the example Carrot mottle virus, your link gives taxnode_id=19931949, and the current Excel link gives taxnode_id=201905268 for what seems to be the same data. 1993 was the first ratification of the virus. So a better approach could be to ask the WikiData people, to change the P1076 property to use a taxnode_id value, and load the properties from the current Excel file. The taxonbar will inherit the fixed WikiData definition. d:Wikidata:Project_chat#ICTV_virus_ID_(P1076)_is_using_an_obsolete_identifier? added on WikiData chat. RDBrown (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone has deprecated the Wikidata identifier so I've inactivated the taxonbar entry. Apparently the current identifier can't be modified for the new id, so any change will need a new identifier to be requested on Wikidata. Then someone needs to add the new ids to wikidata for it to be useful. — Jts1882 | talk 09:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed taxnode ID be added to wikidata: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/ICTV taxnode ID. DferDaisy (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)