Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 9

message: The taxobox_begin,...,taxobox_end syntax needs to be documented somewhere. I think there is a real danger that Wikipedia becomes more and more difficult to use for new users, with all the arcane templates. This documentation belongs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:Template messages. AxelBoldt 11:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct! However, even just in the last couple of days there have been some changes. I'd rather wait a little bit longer to see if any further changes come along before publishing the new format formally. Users (readers) shouldn't notice a thing. Die-hard contributors (editors) can take a peek at the taxoboxes on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life already to see how they are constructed. I'm thinking this weekend or next, depending on if more changes happen. - UtherSRG 11:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxobox_begin documentation 

message: Kranswier
Taxonomy
Kingdom: 
Division:Chlorophyta
Class:Charophyceae
Order:Charales
Family
Characeae
Are the Charales considered to be plants ? Some consider algae to be to primitive to be plants. IPNI for instance does not have a genus like Charra in their database so, I am a bit lost on this one. This is what I think I know. Thanks, GerardM 20:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Tree  of Life [], Charales belong to the Green Plants (= green algae and land plants).   JoJan 21:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charales 

message: The taxonlines are dependend on the number of relevant taxons. With the taxobox that I saw on Salmonides there was a seperate message for each taxon. This can be done with a message with two parameters: Taxon and Taxonname it would be like 
*Nesting messages does not work.. alas, having a text, like en: has works great but only for en: ...
*What alternative is there ? Text does not translate automagically.. :(
*For the Animalia I have used the latin name as this does translate to other wikipedia where Animal does not.
:There is a limit to the number of instances of a template on a single article: 5 instances. Using  would limit you to Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, and Family before you ran out, if you don't use any finer grades. This is why we had to uncompress the taxobox entry templates. However, we chose to continue to be interwiki compatible. Also, we tend to use Animalia to prevent the redirect. Your concern about translation is a tough break.... even if we used the scientific name of a taxon as the article name or a redirect, the scientific name is still usually different in different languages anyway. There is absolutely no reason to compel editors to use one language across all wikis for taxonomy links. Taxonomic names are not latin words. They are latinate words - word with a latin format. However, visit other wikipedias and you'll get other answers. For the interwikis using the Latin alphabet, Primate has the following corresponding interwiki articles: Primat (Danish), Herrentiere (German), Primatoj (Esperanto), Primate (Spanish, French), Primates (Latin, Dutch), Primatas (Portuguese) and Naczelne (Polish). Then add Japanese, Russian and Chinese which don't use the Latin alphabet. - UtherSRG 23:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compacting the taxon lines further, can this be done ? 

message: I'd like to roll out the new template taxobox with a "How to" article on building taxoboxes. I've started it, but i thought it might be a good idea to just start it and post the link here for anyone who wants to craft the "how to" portion, perhaps as a way to learn their workings more. So here it is. - UtherSRG 03:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a page for copying blank template stuff at User:Yath/tol. There is at least one thing I am not sure about: highlighting of genus/subgenus. In some articles it's Genus while in others it's Genus. The same goes for the binomial name in text; it's usually (Genus species) but sometimes also bold. I am assuming for now that italic only is the correct format. --Yath 21:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: After slogging through this discussion from Archive 4, I have gotten some idea of the consensus. I've written them up on User:Yath/tol. Please check it for errors. Also, we should set up a rough draft of this how-to article at something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage or something. Either that, or I can just start hacking on UtherSRG's subpage :-) --Yath 00:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hack at will. I've moved my page to the ToL subpage you've aptly named. - UtherSRG 00:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I guess it would help if I read the main project page. Question answered. --Yath 06:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *grins* Looks like Carpet viper needs some mowing... that's some very tall grass. - UtherSRG 11:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Authority in parentheses: This is a designation that the type author's original assignment for the species has been changed. For instance, let's say I describe a new critter: Genus1 species1 Uther, 2004. Some bozo comes along and shows I'm wrong and reassigns it: Genus2 species1 (Uther, 2004). - UtherSRG 20:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Italics are required. I don't think we ever settled on bold or not bold. - UtherSRG 20:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: BTW - I think you are doing an excellent job! I'm at work, so I can't make significant mental additions, but I'll work on it when I get home. - UtherSRG 20:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling out taxobox templates 

message: Just finished "modernizing" the taxobox over at Painted Lady.  This is not fun (especially for the butterflies, which have around 100 suborders, superfamilies, etc.).  It would be nice if we could send a robot to update taxoboxes, or at least have a script that we could copy/paste into.  Does anyone on this project have any experience roboting MW or already have some scripting put together?  Otherwise I might throw together a perl script to try to automate this to some extent.  --Chinasaur 01:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a program that takes a lot of the grunt work out of updating taxoboxes. It is rather clunky to use, and it only works on HTML-table boxes. I would suggest that if you see a taxobox in HTML table style, you either slap a  on it or use this program. Whatever you do, don't update any more of those by hand. If you want to look at it, it's here. --Yath 07:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox update robot 

message: While checking the ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) 4th ed., Glossary of the ICZN, I stumbled to my surprise on the fact that they only mention the words 'binomen', 'binominal', 'binominal name' and 'Principle of Binominal Nomenclature'. We have been using all the time the words 'binomial' and 'binomial nomenclature'. I think we have a problem worth discussing.  JoJan 18:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't looking at the ICZN site, you are looking at an Australian governmental site. The glossary is of "selected terms as used and defined in the [ICZN]" . I can't reach the ICZN site just now, but I bet they have binomial in there. - UtherSRG 19:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No they have not. Look at . I am quoting from Chapter II, Article 5 : 'Article 5. Names of taxa of ranks in the species-group.-
(a) Principle of Binominal Nomenclature.- The scientific name of a species, and not of a taxon of any other rank, is a combination of two names (a binomen), the first being the generic name and the second the specific epithet; the specific epithet must always begin with a lower-case letter. ' JoJan 20:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Fascinating indeed. The site I first cited Glossary of the ICZN, takes its data from the ICZN 4th edition. I have a print-out of this glossary always at my side when editing a page. That's how I stumbled on this 'anomaly'. Now that the new taxobox templates are rolling out, a small change in your template could do the trick (if a consensus can be reached which word to use). I admit, the words 'binomial' as well as 'binominal' are in the dictionary. On the other hand 'binominal' seems more logical, if you take the Latin origin 'binomen' into account. Look at the word 'nominal' as in 'nominal value' : there is no such word as nominial. And 'nominal' is also derived from the Latin word 'nomen" (= name). Therefore 'binomial' seems like an aberration, even if it is accepted by dictionaries. JoJan 21:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh.. but ther IS such a word as "nomial" (oddly, it's a noun). See http://www.onelook.com Mackerm 22:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binominal ''versus'' Binomial 

message: For those of you interested in botany, I have made a Word-document of this important update. I have made it available for you to download at the following address : []. It will remain there for 30 days.  JoJan 09:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That folder appears to be empty. Yahoo! Briefcase apparently doesn't allow public access to user folders. Is it uploadable to Wikipedia? Also if you have a Yahoo! account, you could upload it to your equivalent Geocities page which is publicly accessible. Thanks! Pcb21| Pete 12:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: You're quite right. My mistake. I have put it now on a special page in Wikipedia. But wikifying this long file was no small beer. You can find it here  Wikipedia_Tree_of_Life/Update_of_the_Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group.Since the original file was given as 'free content' I don't think there will be any problem with copyright. JoJan 19:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group