Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 10

message: Some admins doing category work had noticed that there were alot of user pages turning up in animal related categories, and we tracked it down to this template being used on user subpages for drafting or testing purposes. I've edited the template to only apply categories when the template is being used in mainspace. --bainer (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Could somebody replace first line with: class="infobox" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-right: 0.5em; text-align: center;padding:2.5px";
|- style="text-align:center;", please. It looks much better. For example: :sl:Ptiči.--WailingWailer 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; though I won't make the change without more consensus due to the high usage of this template. Anyone else want to weight in? --MZMcBride 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems better to me. Much neater. Although in some articles (e.g. Eukaryote, Antilope) taxoboxes are built line by line so those should be taken care of too. --Eleassar my talk 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason the multiple templates used for those types of pages can't be merged into one? --MZMcBride 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, in some cases (like Eukaryote) there is such a reason. Even when there is not, there are quite many of such articles with multiple templates , which I'm not volunteering to update. --Eleassar my talk 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No. The infobox class clashes with some of the colors used for the taxobox. It has been discussed over and over and shot down every time. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're just closed minded to any changes to the taxobox. Usually someone disagrees with it (the colours clash with a gray border?), the idea loses steam, and it's forgotten about. The current taxobox looks like shit. —Pengo 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would help a lot if UtherSRG demonstrated this in a sandbox (or provided some other link). --Eleassar my talk 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been demonstrated before either on this talk (search the archives) or the talk on WP:TOL (again, search the archives). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put test code in my sandbox. Examples seen using the code are available here. Please feel free to check the code and make any corrections. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has any better objections than "search the archives" then I'm updating the taxobox to this. The new format is a huge improvement. —Pengo 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding my support for the change. Mgiganteus1 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hurrah! —Pengo 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form 

message: Operator can read the microformat, but says that it's invalid; I think the problem is with the extension, and have reported the matter to its developer. 
I've also added a note about the microformat to the template documentation page, inviting further comment. I'll be happy to relay comments, made here, back to the microformat community, and Operator's developer.
:Andy Mabbett 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bug is with the labelling used for display in Operator, and a fix is in hand. Andy Mabbett 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Andy Mabbett 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One.... I have Operator 0.8a.... but it doesn't ship with biota. Where can I get the biota microformat? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need the "species" user script, from http://www.kaply.com/weblog/operator-user-scripts/ - existing users should note that that was updated as few hours ago. After installing it (overwriting the previous version, if any), restart FireFox. NOte that there are user scripts for other microformats, too. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I go that, added the user script to operator and restarted Firefox, but still nothing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you go into "Data Formats" and add "Species"; and into "Actions" and add "WikiSpecies"? You'll need another restart after that. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Incomplete instructions. ;) No I didn't. Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok., Works now. Doesn't do anything, as you said it wouldn't, but it works. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microformat testing

message: Mike Kaply has kindly fixed the bug, and Operator is now detecting the microformat in all pages with taxoboxes :-)
Since both the microformat and the related Operator script are still in development, there isn't much you can do with them yet, but the "actions" view allows a search on WikiSpecies, and the "data format" view with "debug" enabled allows one to see the data parsed. 
What needs doing next is to firm up the microformat spec: What should all the parameters be called; which ranks should be used; how do we handle the edge cases, like hybrids, cultivars, morphs, etc? While canonical discussion should be on the microformats wiki, I'm happy to report back to there, any discussion here. After all, I think the expertise and a good spread of test cases, are here. 
Any thoughts? 
:Andy Mabbett 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One.... I have Operator 0.8a.... but it doesn't ship with biota. Where can I get the biota microformat? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need the "species" user script, from http://www.kaply.com/weblog/operator-user-scripts/ - existing users should note that that was updated as few hours ago. After installing it (overwriting the previous version, if any), restart FireFox. NOte that there are user scripts for other microformats, too. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I go that, added the user script to operator and restarted Firefox, but still nothing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you go into "Data Formats" and add "Species"; and into "Actions" and add "WikiSpecies"? You'll need another restart after that. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Incomplete instructions. ;) No I didn't. Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok., Works now. Doesn't do anything, as you said it wouldn't, but it works. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I only ask because two taxoboxes on my watchlist, American Goldfinch and and New Zealand Snipe, have been altered today because the long text below an illustration was no longer breaking  and . Says one of the editors doing this...Break up caption that was causing ridiculously wide infobox (in IE7, anyway. When I looked at the old versions in IE it did indeed become ridiculously wide. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it has to do with removing the width CSS entity. The infobox should probably be set to width:23em. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this needs to be fixed. Whoever did this, please undo it. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... shouldn't this be as simple as finding the edit that screwed things up on the template history & reverting it? It'd be pretty obvious as it would affect the caption break... My 2 cents... Spawn Man 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put the width:200px; back into the infobox, and wrapping now seems to work, at least on the article I looked at, Stylidium debile.-gadfium 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The template was switched to use the "infobox" class to put it in-line with the vast majority of templates used throughout Wikipedia. It's more easily readable for users with sight problems and it furthers the projects goals with respect to access. Also, as a quick note to those able to ediit the template, 37,000+ transclusions have to be updated even for the smallest edit / revert. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KK, but it's still shifted some 4 pixels left from the right margin of the article text ?cell/field?. Dysmorodrepanis 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has someone been mucking about with the taxobox? 

message: Can someone please tell me how many articles call this template; or better still, how to find that out for myself? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you want is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox&limit=500&from=0 , but good luck counting how many pages of 500 articles use this template.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the whatlinkshere page only offers links up to 500, the backend accepts limits up to 5000, if you manually edit the url. So try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Taxobox&limit=5000&from=0 . Hesperian 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya learn something new everyday. Too bad this was all I'm going to learn today. ;) Now if only we didn't have to use such tricks to count the pages.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're an AWB user you could use the whattranscludeshere feature to load a session, then look at the count. Heck, I'll do it for you, it will only take a minute or two... 37140 articles. Hesperian 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, all. Andy Mabbett 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage statistics 

message: I see you guys trying to update Taxobox. How do you do thtat? Do you have a "template sandbox" where you make the changes to a copy of the template to see how it is going to look and after they are OK then you apply them to the actual template OR do you edit the actual template without the precaution? -- Boris 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We try to edit in a sandbox, as it's easy to make mistakes. There's no universal sandbox for the taxobox, and instead people make their own. Details are at Template:Taxobox#Making_changes. —Pengo 09:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template update 

message: Since we've changed the style of the taxobox I've realised that the first line should have a plain (white) background. Can we remove the coloured highlight from the name field of the taxobox? The name is conceptually at a higher heading level than its "subheadings" such as "Scientific classification" and "Binomial name" etc, and the pink/green background should be reserved only for those "second level" headings. It would also look better when there was no photo. Does anyone disagree with this? —Pengo 08:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, it looks awful unless the images are given their own pink/green subheading: like this. Which doesn't look great either. So forget it. I still prefer the format for taxoboxes without images, but I don't think taking images out of taxoboxes would be so popular —Pengo 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove highlight from top heading 

message: I'd like to ask if some of the fields of this infobox are always latin terms, namely the binomial nomenclature or the different ranks of Scientific classification. That's because non-English words should be tagged using the  template, in this case  for (la for Latin). See Template talk:lang. This will be an easy change. Best regards, —surueña 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; scientific names (not "latin names", please!) often include words from  other languages, or made up words. As I have suggested elsewhere, there is a need for a language code for such terms. Incidentally, I've also recently documented how the draft 'Species' microformat can help translation agents to know which words not to translate (such as "major" in Parus major). Andy Mabbett 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see... You are completely aware of the advantages of language tags, and that's a good thing. Yes, probably using microformats is the best solution until another approach is standarized. But I'm mainly concerned about accessibility issues, so in my opinion the microformat used should not only be focused in automatic translations but also in screen readers. Best regards, —surueña 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point about screen readers (I'm an accessibility advocate, too); and screen readers could indeed recognise microformatted content. However, that's a side issue for microformats, which are about marking up existing data so that it can be sued as metadata by parsers and user agents of any type. Cheers, Andy Mabbett 14:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's a side issue, but what I want to say is that, in addition, the scientific terms also need some kind of "pronuntiation microformat". A screen reader cannot infer from the 'translation metadata' how to "render" those words, and thus it would be useless wrt accessibility. I'm not an expert about microformats, please, am I missing something? Best regards, —surueña 07:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a point, but this would be better discussed on the microformats mailing list. Andy Mabbett 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. And keep your great job at enabling semantic content in the web! —surueña 15:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Please consider joining the Microformats on Wikipedia project, and see discussion at What Wikipedia is not. Andy Mabbett 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin terms 

message: The taxoboxes are still offset a few pixels (4 or so) from the right margin. Compare for example Sierra Madre Sparrow with Akkadian language. Somebody please correct that. Dysmorodrepanis 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offset from margin 

message: Has any thought been given to applying the Wikispecies solution to taxoboxes, i.e. nesting classification templates?  This would mean that when the affiliation of a taxon is changed, all relevant taxoboxes could be updated with a single edit.  On the other hand, it might be regarded as imposing undue server load (although if that isn't a problem for Wikispecies, perhaps it wouldn't be a problem here either).  The logistics might be a little complicated; I'm just curious if anyone has been exploring this possibility.  -- Visviva 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I see with this is that this is exactly one of the things that causes problems with the accuracy of Wikispecies. These days, we're dealing with an increasing number of taxa the exact phylogenetic placement of which needs more data... Wikispecies all too often suggests accuracy when in the real-world science, there is none. Dysmorodrepanis 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would be possible to include "incertae sedis" or where possible a link to a description of the controversy/lacuna/problem in the template for the relevant taxon -- and such a qualification would then be automatically transmitted to any downstream articles/templates using that template.  The problem with the current situation is that when such problems arise, it is a Royal Pain to indicate them separately in every relevant taxobox, just as it is also a Royal Pain to reflect updates in the canonical taxonomy.  -- Visviva 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but this is possible right now too, and it would be more efficient (not to mention scientifically accurate) than to bloat the taxobox to include all vagarities of nomenclature. (Three examples: Bearded Reedling, Tapaculo and Stitchbird) But yes, it is indeed a pain. I'm not sure though whether such an automatized approach won't break more thing than it'll fix, because each of the 3 examples would probably require different treatment: one is incertae sedis, one is non-monophyletic, one is an unnamed recent split. Dysmorodrepanis 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nesting 

message: A point for discussion: the present system of unranked clades doesn't reflect what these things are. The major point (and usefulness) is that an indefinite number of taxa can be set up hierarchically. That includes several unranked taxa between any two named ranks. For example, it is impossible to do a good taxobox for any given theropod with a known phylogeny - the systematics presented in the article can simply not be mapped onto the taxobox template. Unranked and ranked taxa need to be separated; it just doesn't make sense otherwise. IONO whether this is possible, but simply placing the output of "unranked =" where it stands in the sequence, and if multiple unranked clades are needed using "unranked1 =" "unranked2 =" might do the job. Dysmorodrepanis 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be feasible to put a free-text field after every rank; would that be adequate?  Otherwise I don't see anything that would work without making the code massively hairier than it is now.  -- Visviva 12:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would do it. The way rank-free taxa work, there would need to be a theoretically infinite number of rank-free inserts after any ranked taxon... Dysmorodrepanis 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unranked 

message: A new user script for the 'Species' microformat has been released; adding extra search options and improving the search facility for ranks other than binomials. See above for background information. Andy Mabbett 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a new beta version of Operator (0.8b). One of the improvements is an optional icon in the location bar, when a page with a microformat is visited. Andy Mabbett 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species microformat update 

message: Could  be replaced with  so that it only has to be specified when you need a different name? (I've always liked to keep the size of templates in articles to a minimum as huge templates make editing the text more difficult and daunting). Thanks. Verisimilus T 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; seems straightforward and meritorious. -- Visviva 11:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your prompt action! Verisimilus T 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a look at the updates required for species microformat, above, in this context - I'd be grateful for suggestions! Andy Mabbett 15:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default value for name 

message: Somebody recently added Category:Animal to one of my watched articles with a taxobox and it struck me that this ought to be redundant; the template could easily do this itself.  In fact, the more I think about this, the more the template could automatically do things. I'll present this option first, then add a second once I've had a good think about it.
I'm not sure whether the "category" attribute should override the default or not - this is easily modified.
Code could easily be written to place things in a kingdom-level category; however, not being 100% sure of how categorisation should work, is this in fact what we want, or are things better placed solely in more specific sub-categories?
Secondly, as Wikipedia tries not to favour US or UK spelling, could the following amendments be made to the entire template? That way, the colour can be specified with or without a u and will be understood by the template.
A "transparent" default should probably be specified for the first "" anyway.

{{{color}}} → {{{color|{{{colour|transparent}}}}}}
{{{color|transparent}}} → {{{color|{{{colour|transparent}}}}}}

Verisimilus T 09:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic categorisation; allow UK spelling 

message: I've written a sub-template, .  "transparent", where it appears above, can now be replaced with : this will auto-detect the colour and remove the need to check which colour is appropriate and specify it in the template, whilst allowing the colour to be overruled if required. Verisimilus T 09:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your implementation. Having spent a little time checking that it's working, I've noticed a couple of compatibility issues. Therefore, could the following amendment please be made to accommodate viruses, and non-word results? Cheers, Verisimilus T 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic colour detection 

message: I've always been one for automation...
Just another thought; we could avoid the creation of redirects etc. by letting the user specify the kingdom without wikilinks, and allowing the template to deduce which kingdom they mean and provide a suitably wikilinked output. It'd probably take me 20 minutes to knock the code together and I'm meant to be doing lots of other things, so I thought I'd get some consensus as to whether this is worth doing or not in terms of whether it would make a noticeable difference to server load or page load times.  Would the slickness added ease-of use outweigh these possible costs?
Verisimilus T 09:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furhter automating 

message: Sorry to break up the flow of the discussion - feel free to add to it wherever you deem it appropriate!
I've set up a template  and think the best way to use it would be as such:

I've considered turning the error message off is a colour is specified, but feel that we might as well encourage the editor to use the proper description for the kingdom anyway. 
Verisimilus T 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  How would this affect the many protist articles which now do not have Kingdom=Protista in their taxoboxes?  Most have been switched to one of the supergroups.  It'll help with vandals who put Kingdom=Fart, but I personally think it would be best to wait until the whole kingdom thing settles down, and their is near unanimous consensus in the taxonomic community.  Werothegreat 01:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This template would still be useful in at least 99% of articles, where there's no chance of organisms being unclassified as a plant or animal, say.  I suppose the error message should only be displayed if neither Kingdom nor Color are specified. That way no existing article will be affected, but new taxoboxes can be added without the necessity of referring to the documentation. Verisimilus T 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrecognised kingdom spotter 

message: Suggest indenting all authority fields, as this will make the box read better.--algocu (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Authority

message: May I suggest that "Fossil range" is re-worded somehow? I can't yet come up with a good description, but some groups are known to exist before they are fossilised. For example, fossils - even trace fossils - of Archaea are not universally accepted before about , whilst isotopic evidence suggests that they existed from  or more; Dinoflagellates and Coccolithophores (if I recall correctly) leave chemical biomarkers such as steranes before their fossil record begins. Maybe "Geological record" would be a better term?
Whatever was decided, the parameter fossil_range could remain, with geological_range (or whatever) overriding it where it's specified; this would avoid extensive re-writing of existing articles.
Verisimilus T 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the param is not restricted to a specific input, what keeps one from simply adding an "(but see text)" after the range? I use that all the time when it's appropriate. Assignment of ichnofossils to "true" taxa is always a somewhat inexact and subjective matter. With a system as you propose, it'll be only a matter of time until someone extends the fossil range of Aves into the Triassic based on Trisauropodiscus... Dysmorodrepanis 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good suggestion - thanks! Verisimilus T 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See for example Epidendrosaurus. Dysmorodrepanis 03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil range inadequate 

message: Can we please add provision in the source code for a superdomain?  This would be specifically for the Archaea and Eukaryote articles, allowing them to have the inclusive group Neomura in their taxobox.  Werothegreat 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a simple request; someone will need to write and test the code, and then put up an editprotected tag for the code to be copied over here once there is agreement that it functions as desired. If you need help writing the code, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requested templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.  Please use sparingly. -- Visviva 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superdomain request 

message: Please could the additional field "Type locality" be added to the template. Feel free to message me on my talk page if clarification is required. SP-KP 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please write and test the code, and find consensus for it, and then put up a request for the code to be copied over here. Because only a few admins handle these requests, we don't usually have time to do the writing, testing, and discussion ourselves (on average there are over 20 of editprotected requests per day). If you need help writing the code, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requested templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Judging from the previous discussion, there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus for this.  On reflection, I do not object; however, I would like to see comments from others before this is implemented. -- Visviva 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New field 

message: The link to Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox on this template violates WP:SELF: "Any article in the article namespace that links to one in the Wikipedia namespace". Remember that a concern of self-references is that they "limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our license". Look how the copy of Bacteria appears on answers.com. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be removed - I'm not sure how useful the linked-to page is, anyway. Verisimilus T 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation is on a doc subpage and is not protected; you can edit it without admin assistance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have misundestood the reqest, which was for the "i" imagemap to be removed from the template. Verisimilus T 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm... it's been up for awhile, and I'd hate to de-link a help page someone obviously put a lot of work into, but I also have to admit it's not clear to me that we need this particular self-reference. If there are parts of the infobox which remain unclear, perhaps we could put some energy into making them more self-explanatory? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh, I haven't seen that one, before. Makes some sense, but there's still the issue of whether this particular self-reference is to be desired (seems open to discussion?). Might be an issue for the village pump, this talk page doesn't seem to be developing too much discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: selfref doesn't seem to work in an imagemap. I could probably redo it as a div. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation on [[WP:SELF]] 

message: Can somebody please insert the following line under (I think) the "|NE|ne=...":
 |NR|nr=Not recognized
Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New param 

message: Shouldn't the words "Least concern" under the conservation status be changed to "Least Concern"? That's the capitalisation in use on the IUCN Red List. Bart133 (t) (c) 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted.  Neil ム 13:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least Concern 

message: Earlier today I noticed that some of the IUCN Red List classification indicators are broken. For example, if you look at Python molurus, you'll see what I mean. In this case, the link to the image Status_iucn2.3_NT.svg is not working. Did somebody delete or rename these images? --Jwinius 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: apparently, the images are still there, but they're simply not being linked to. What's going on? --Jwinius 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, it was server issues. —METS501 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Works now.--Yannick 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN links broken 

message: What are we going to do about full citations for plant autonyms, folks? The taxoboxes misplace the author citations. Here's some examples:
;Banksia subg. Banksia: The taxobox reads "Banksia subg. Banksia L.f.", whereas it should read "Banksia L.f. subg. Banksia";
;Banksia sect. Banksia: The taxobox reads "Banksia sect. Banksia L.f.", whereas it should read "Banksia L.f. sect. Banksia";
;Banksia ser. Banksia: The taxobox reads "Banksia ser. Banksia L.f.", whereas it should read "Banksia L.f. ser. Banksia";
;Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia: The taxobox reads "Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia L.f.", whereas it should read "Banksia integrifolia L.f. subsp. integrifolia".
;Banksia armata var. armata: The taxobox reads "Banksia armata var. armata (R.Br.) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele", whereas it should read "Banksia armata (R.Br.) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele var. armata".
I can't see an obvious solution to this, but it really, really does need to be fixed. If we can't master basic nomenclature, we might as well pack up and go home. Hesperian 13:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I have manually tweaked some of these so that they read correctly, but that doesn't change the fact that this problem exists. Hesperian 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  plant autonyms 

message: The use of this template in the Cape Hyrax article has a few spatial issues. Is it possible to collapse the template or sections of the template? --Aarktica 16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problems I'm seeing with my browser is that there are too many right aligned images beneath the taxobox.  I would argue against collapsing taxoboxes.  --Aranae 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was just a thought. The idea was to have a feature that would allow the box to be collapsed for aesthetic reasons. This would be analogous to the consolidation of Wikiproject banners on talk pages which have a show/hide option. --Aarktica 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably a not too shabby option for Classification, Map and Synonyms. The other sections probably contain too  much information directly relevant to the page. Map does too of course, but the map's the one piece of taxobox that I also find hardest to tweak to get a good layout. Dysmorodrepanis 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess this is rather different from ###px that can be used to resize pictures? --Aarktica 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse feature 

message: i think it's inconsistent to link to a species list via the "Diversity" line, mainly because the other headings ("Scientific classification", "Type species") link to a general article about the subject. i would propose to really link to an article about diversity, and instead link to the species list from the line below, which mentions the number of species/genera etc. other than that, the taxobox is the best thing since computers started to have a monitor ;) --Sarefo 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diversity link 

message: I think this should have an imagemap to the place where it says Least Concern, EExtinct, etc. Clicking on one of the bubbles will go to the right page. Remarks? Soxred93 has a boring sig 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagemap 

message: 
In preparation for taxobox colour changes (discussed here, comments welcome), could the following code:
#
be replaced with:
#
This will enable the Taxobox colour template to correctly determine the appropriate colour for Rhizaria and Amoebozoa taxoboxes.
Many thanks,
Verisimilus T 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - looks good. Nihiltres{t.l} 04:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox colours 

message: (originally posted at WT:TOL on 12 November 2007)
Is there some way we can make this less circular:  See, e.g. Goat, the article is about the domesticated species (Capra aegagrus hircus), the taxobox puts it in , however, the article is in  which is a subcat of , which is in , which is unnecessarily duplicative.  Also see, e.g. Chicken which is listed as domesticated and therefore in  but  is in  is in both  and  both of which are in .  This is a problem with any species that is categorized as livestock or poultry.  Is there any way to make the taxoboxes more flexible with respect to categorization?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a problem with the current category structure. The categories the taxobox should use should be a species-level category. This is how it is for the various endangerment level categories, such as . Perhaps  should be created and used by the taxobox? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxoboxes for Livestock species and Categories 

message: Greetings. I run Polbot, the bot that created several thousand new species articles from IUCN data earlier this year. A representative from IUCN contacted me at User talk:Quadell#Conservation Status in Taxobox asking, in effect, if I could make a minor change to the Taxobox template. When status_system is used to indicate that the data comes from the IUCN, he asked if it could say "(IUCN Red List)" instead of "(IUCN)", since more people are familiar with the "Red List" name than are familiar with the IUCN acronym. Would there be any objections to me making this change to this template? All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good with this. And the link can be IUCN Red List. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and did the change. I can quickly revert if anyone objects. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hrm. It does make that line a bit long when the status itself is long, such as "Critically endangered". I think that's why we chose to use "IUCN" instead of "IUCN Red List". Perhaps just use "Red List" and keep it as a link to IUCN Red List? Or perhaps change the longer status to something shorter like "Crit. endangered"? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  IUCN staff here who requested the change.  If using "IUCN Red List" for the reference makes too long of a line with the longer categories like Critically Endangered, then I would vote for keeping it like you already have it (IUCN), although I tested it on one CR species and the line was long but did not  wrap to two lines nor did it appear to widen the taxobox at all - I thought it looked fine.  We'd rather not see the category be abbreviated and using "Red List" alone is also not desirable.  However, another small issue is that the categories are used on the IUCN Red List website with all words being capitalized, like "Critically Endangered", "Least Concern", etc Ichobar (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Our capitalization issues are our own. :D That aside, I now think keeping it as "(IUCN)" will be better. The longer display would be longer than the status image (the bit with the circles representing the various statuses), and when the reference superscript link is also present, that make it even longer. I've reverted the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with that solution. "Conservation status" could include other things than the IUCN category, but it doesn't, so why not be precise?--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tasmanian Devil uses (or used) something other than the IUCN's status, and some of the statuses (like domesticated) are not IUCN. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, there's a list of different status systems we use at Wikipedia:Conservation status. However, we can tell when it's IUCN from "status_system = iucn3.1" (or = iucn2.3). I'll be getting Beastie Bot up and running again sometime and this time I'll add it to all the taxoboxes it fits (I didn't add it to everything last time because it wasn't being used). Then we can have it consistent and stuff, and make the title "IUCN Red List category" when only when it fits, and "Conservation status" other times. Hoorah. —Pengo 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN Red List status 

message: Hello Template Editors. I've been converting some taxoboxes to the new format, however, in some cases there is no virus group information in the old template. If I leave virus_group blank (no parameter) then the template code does not make the taxobox violet in color. Can we fix the switch statement in the code so that a blank virus_group entry still applies the color? Thanks. —Noah 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the workaround is to just add "color = violet". I suppose I will just document that on the Template Taxobox page in the virus_group section. —Noah 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to enter regnum = Virus, in case the colours change in the future. Thanks, Verisimilus T 11:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem to work. If you put in regnum = Virus and leave out color = Violet then the taxobox does not get any color. —Noah 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Try wikilinking "Virus".  Sorry! Verisimilus T 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  virus_group unknown 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — —Noah 05:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Taxobox begin}}]] 

message: An additional status is needed:
|status=CRDOM
Results: Template:Taxobox/Status sandbox
There are creatures that are critical in the wild but so common in captivity that they are bred by the millions annually for laboratories and the pet trade.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an organization that lists species as such? And which species do you propose are "CRDOM"? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is an official list, but in many cases the IUCN redlist and pet trade figures should provide sufficient sourceing. I know that several Cobitidae would probably match the bill... Ameca splendens possibly too (I remember breeding them some years ago, and they were available readily enough. Not like guppies, but you could get them if you wanted to). Most of the taxa are fish, some arthropods perhaps too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need additional status 

message: Although conservations status is important, it is not very useful to most readers.  Consider the average third grader who wants the quick stats for his homework.  The physical specifics of a species occur after the rather esoteric conservations status.  My two cents... Msa11usec (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections--move conservation status lower 

message: I tried a taxobox with diversity, type species and subdivision_ranks params, and it looks kinda crappy. The type species section would be placed more "logically" immediately after the last taxon in the main sequence, as they give taxonomic info. And if you have a subdivision_ranks as well as a diversity section - which is appropriate for most orders or higher - they ought to be grouped together as they say something about lower-level systematics. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined. The template must be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please post the exact code you would like to have changed. Sandstein (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (If I could tell where each part of code starts and ends, I would post that... but if I could tell, I'd have by now cared to get the rights to change it myself ;-) ) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in sections?