Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 7

message: I've put the conservation status in its own section and added a diagramatic graphic thing. The diagram is slightly different if the taxon was evaluated with the old IUCN system (e.g. Orca) or the new system (e.g. Trocaz Pigeon). (The "status_system = iucn2.3" field that Beastie Bot was adding to taxoboxes was in anticipation of adding this graphic. It defaults to the new system.) If people hate the whole thing, it can be reverted. I don't add the graphic to extinct species (eg Golden Toad) because it would be in poor taste. —Pengo  talk · contribs 09:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This change has created a very bland conservation status section for fossil species, as it simply lists "Fossil" in plain text under a new heading, which to me is less aethetically pleasing than having it in unobtrusive small text within the main taxobox header (see Tyrannosaurus as an example). Any way to spruce this up, or at least increase the amount of information contained in this new section? Off the top of my head, combing fossil and extinct may work, e.g. Extinct (fossil). Combining the fossil range section into the conservation status section would be kind of cool, especially if a timeline diagram could be incorporated in place of the threat level diagram.Dinoguy2 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem: it makes taxoboxes with images that are smaller than the width of the new image display a white margin round the species image and/or range map - not very pretty (a few examples: European Robin, Basking shark, Bald Eagle, Ring-tailed Lemur, Ocelot) Yomanganitalk 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the standard width for the taxobox image tends to be 200px. The conservation diagram seems to be wider than this.Dinoguy2 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the image width problem (the status diagrams were set to 200px too, but had padding, which is now removed). As for the fossil status.. can't we just remove the status altogether? it seems unnecessary? there is already fossil range. Otherwise, you can just put whatever you like in there. If it's not a known code, then it defaults to whatever you write in the status field (see example) —Pengo  talk · contribs 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem removing Fossil status altogether, but there are hundreds of pages that use it. If somebody could make the code "status = fossil" produce something like "Extinct (fossil)" or simply combine it with "status = ex", this might be a better solution. Or, if possible, just have the "status = fossil" code null the whole Conservation status section, since fossil animals don't fall within any ranking system like the IUCN anyway, that I know of.Dinoguy2 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've changed the text to "Extinct (fossil)" for now. —Pengo  talk · contribs 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, except you misspelled Extinct as Exinct ;) Dinoguy2 01:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extinct birds for example uses three different statusses for extinct. Just "Extinct" when it is since 1500 AD (IUCN), "Prehistoric" for Late Quaternary prehistoric times and (usually) known from specimens not completely fossilized, and "Fossil" for species known only from fossils. I would suggest these three different ones, OR use for all "Extinct", but than also "Extinct (prehistoric)", like it now is with fossil species. And useing the new graphic for all IUCN status, including the extinct one. Peter Maas\talk 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why.  Surely both fossil range and conservation status are important for extant species that are the only member of higher categories (i.e. White-tailed Rat).  --Aranae 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be the focal point, it is more important than anything else in the taxobox ;). I don't think it would be possible to do it without losing information. I don't find it is ugly, so I have no problem with it. --liquidGhoul 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a plain black-and-white version that could be switched to on an article-by-article basis? —Pengo  talk · contribs 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my thinking.. The status device shows a landscape of the categories that are possible for the species, and highlights its current location on that landscape — What its category is versus what it could be. So say, an endangered species like the Maleo may eventually become critically endangered, or may go the other way and become only "near threatened". Even a "least concern" species may one day become endangered. In contrast, an extinct species is extinct. Crichtonian cloning and Lazarus resurrection aside, there is no such landscape for an extinct species. It will never be critically endangered, or vulnerable, or near threatened, or least concern, or extinct in the wild. It is extinct and will continue to be. Adding an "extinct" graphic showing these other categories would be akin to adding a range map to the dodo, or having an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is. Personally, I'd consider that to be in poor taste. —Pengo  talk · contribs 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of agree with that, except that many, many species have come back from an extinct classification. It is not fact that many of the smaller animals/plants etc. are extinct, it is just assumed from the lack of finding them. It has happened quite a few times with Australian frogs. --liquidGhoul 05:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did make reference to Lazarus taxa above, however species which may be extinct but it isn't certain are generally listed as Critically Endangered (CR) or "Possibly Extinct" by the IUCN. —Pengo  talk · contribs 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is, would indeed be poor tast, I agree with you on that. But I disagree when it comes to the extinction status or range maps (that show their former range). That is only informative and educational in my opinion. It shows facts. Not poor taste in my opinion. Peter Maas\talk 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: :Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae
:"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Wikipedia: Article on Tilia  which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, mentioned the possibility of using dual classifications in taxoboxes on the WP:TOL taxobox discussion page and it was soundly rejected already.  I do have another suggestion along the same lines that I will make, though.  I'll add you to my user page to rememeber to discuss it with you.  I'll check you move proposal.  KP Botany 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessively rigid taxoboxes

message: Not being familiar much with templates, I came across a difficulty while trying to disambiguate Biological type.  Is there a way that "type" links in taxoboxes could link directly to Type (botany) or Type (zoology) as appropriate and not to the Biological type disambiguation page?  (See Asteraceae, for an example.) Thanks for any help, Figma 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ugh! another Bryaism. These two articles should be united, not ambiguated. —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox change? 

message: Is it possible to prevent the pink bars from spilling into the borders? JMK 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neatness 

message: This issue came up when describing the status of the Chinese river dolphin, which is believed to be extinct or likely so. 204.52.215.107 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't "extinct" be best... and then explain further in the article? ---J.S  (T/C) 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use "status = PE" (which stands for "possibly extinct"). Note that the IUCN currently treats "possibly extinct" as "critically endangered". It's very sad to lose this dolphin. I've removed the "editprotected" tag, but if "PE" isn't good enough then go ahead and put it back. —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need new taxobox template status: "Probably extinct" 

message: can someone please add the heabrew interwiki? here it is:
 he:תבנית:מיון
:thanks --89.138.114.45 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. interwiki links can be added by anyone to Template:Taxobox/doc by the way. —Pengo  talk · contribs 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: interwiki