Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage

message: Is there any preferred way how to list synonyms? I.e., alphabetically or by date of publication? I have found myself doing either, and found each approach to be equally advantageous and disadvantageous. Depending on the specific taxon, either may be easier to maintain. Usually, an alphabetic list will be easier to read and maintain. But e.g. in Falcon, there have been so many preoccupied names and names that were later "fixed" believing they were preoccupied (but weren't) that there is no getting around a chronological listing. Dysmorodrepanis 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonyms list

message: Marshall, Texas has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Okiefromokla•talk 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marshall, Texas FAR 

message: I am currently working on the Lepidopterans, whose taxonomy presents a rank "series" between superfamily and family. It is not the same-named "series" in the botanical sense of the term, but a distinct and different rank. We need to have it added to the taxobox template... For the time being, I am using the variable "series" in my lepidopteran taxobox (knowing that the taxob appears at the wrong place) and waiting for something better. Oeropium 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're talking about the taxobox at an article like Epidendrum denticulatum? My first answer would probably be to keep subgenera, sections, subsections, etc, out of taxoboxes.  Now, that's a great answer when there are dozens of species.  When there are 1100, as with Epidendrum, I'm not sure whether to stick to it.  But calling a subsection a series seems confusing (well, inaccurate, really). Incidentally, how many species are left in Epidendrum if the segregate genera are recognized?  For Eupatorium, I pretty much decided that there wasn't much choice but to accept a narrow circumscription of the genus for taxobox purposes, because the wide circumscription is darn close to the whole tribe Eupatorieae (well, the fact the specialists seem to agree on the narrow circumscription certain helps there). One more detail: there's an issue with where these links point to.  Right now this article has a section link to Schistochila which is a Marchantiophyta genus.  I think the right link is Epidendrum sect. Schistochila (probably with some piping to put in some italics) but you might want to double-check that at WT:PLANTS. Kingdon (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New rank needed

message: It might be helpful to have a complete example of a Virus taxobox on the usage page. After all, they are quite different from plant and animal boxes. Rl (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viruses 

message: An IUCN representative contacted me, asking if I could make a minor change to Template:Taxobox so that "(IUCN Red List)" is shown instead of "(IUCN)" when conservation data comes from the IUCN Red List. In order to keep discussion together, please leave any comments at Template talk:Taxobox#IUCN Red List status. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN Red List status 

message: Is there any way to list the superfamily Apoidea above the Anthophila in the bee taxobox? Presently, I think the listing implies that Apoidea is included within Anthophila and is as such misleading. I tried playing around with "unranked_something" parameter, but nothing else than unranked_superfamilia works. --Yerpo (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the Antophila taxon down; it's a bit of a hack. It should be done properly with a parameter "unranked_genus", but that doesn't exist. (Yet.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that kind of hack, interesting idea. I tweaked it a bit more but it's still not perfect and should be done the way you mentioned. Thanx anyway.  --Yerpo (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the unranked_genus parameter, and updated the taxobox at Bee. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bee]] 

message: Is there any benefit of an additional field to specify the circumscription reference like "circumscription_ref=Clarke, 2004.." ? (See Uniramia, Bird etc.) Shyamal (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''sensu'' field?

message: Given that :Category:Invalid conservation status is robustly populated with fossil organisms that have |status=fossil in their taxobox, would it be feasible (or even desirable, given that many don't have |fossil_range, particularly our numerous ammonite articles) to have a bot go through and remove that element, similar to what Eubot did when taxobox color was linked to kingdom? J. Spencer (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly be desirable!  You can list a request at WP:BOTREQ. Verisimilus T 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will run Eubot to do this, you don't have to request this task. What do you want to replace it with? I don't like the idea of just throwing the information away. Perhaps "fossil = 1"? We can decide afterward how to display that information. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't really thought about replacement - would "fossil = 1" or whatever be a hidden/nondisplaying field? J. Spencer (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this moment, yes. But we should change the template to show it in some way, in my opinion. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the new "fossil = 1" be an element that should be standard to all fossil organisms, or treated as a placeholder until someone gets around to adding a fossil range? J. Spencer (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it should be standard. We need a parameter that says "extinct"; fossil_range alone does not imply this. See for example Leporidae. Perhaps "extinct=1" would be better, although it overlaps with the EXtinct status code. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said, a fossil range is not an indication that the taxon is a fossil. If you have a separate parameter "fossil=1", you can change the taxobox to show it. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. If you're planning on adding a parameter, rather than just changing the way you use what is already there, then you should be having this discussion at Template talk:Taxobox. Hesperian 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The more I think about it, the more I think that the problem is that "status=fossil" is perfectly legitimate. It may not be associated with an endorsed status system, but it is still a perfectly reasonable conservation status. The status parameter is never going to be used for anything else in the case of fossils, so "status=fossil" is logically equivalent to "fossil=1". Why don't we propose that "status=fossil" be accepted as valid? Hesperian 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Invalid conservation status]] 

message: The missing field in the taxobox is type_locality. Would it be possible to implement this?--Wloveral (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is supposed to be for discussions on improving the taxobox documentation. Discussions on improving the functionality ought to be at Template talk:Taxobox. In practice the two talk pages are smudged together somewhat, but I still think you would be better off posting this request over there instead of here. Hesperian 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll try knocking on that door.--Wloveral (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type_locality field, if it is not too much to ask 

message: The taxobox at Thermococcus litoralis is broken; however, I don't know if the edit that broke it is legitimate or not. Is this an appropriate classification? --- RockMFR 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage at Thermococcus litoralis 

message: Since the color of the taxobox is assigned automatically according to regnum, the color is not assigned automatically for any page on taxa belonging to the bacteria or archaea.  Neither of these groups has been subdivided into kingdoms, and their pages do not list a value for regnum.  To determine the color for prokaryotes, could the taxobox please check domain" for these taxa? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic color and prokaryotes 

message: Hi All -
I was wondering whether anyone could suggest what kind of taxobox could/should be used for intergeneric hybrid animals? MidgleyDJ (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to use for hybrid animals? 

message: I have created  for the display of in-line scientific names, with the same draft "species" microformat used by taxoboxes. 
So far, it works only for vernacular, binominal, trinominal and genus names (example on template documentation), but I'll add a few other ranks soon ; and more complex processing for Foo bar ssp. boo and other such formats, later.
It allows wiki-linking, and the optional emboldening of vernacular names, and italicises scientific names automatically.
Comments welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really a broad statement and not intended as specifically targeted to this template, but it does apply.  I worry that wikipedia is becoming overly reliant on templates.  I think one of the goals is to have a simple form of markup that "anyone can edit."  If you're a professional scientist and want to put in half an hour correcting the information on an animal on which you specialize, it would be nice if you can make some contributions using not much more than the tools at the top of the edit summary.  My real beef remains with the use of complex markup in inline citations - the last thing we want to do is discourage people from citing`sources - but it applies elsewhere as well.  I guess my question is, and I want to emphasize that there's a polite tone to these words on a page because I really appreciate the work that's done in creating these templates (not my expertise), is what purpose does it serve? How will it make things simpler for the editor?  Is it meant to help standardize?  --Aranae (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for in-line vernacular & scientitfc names 

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. Hesperian 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawn for now, as it has been pointed out to me that Andy is currently not in a position to respond. Hesperian 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy is back; TfD is live. Hesperian 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Biota}}]] 

message: Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Conservation status - I think that there is discrepancy in notes about using conservation status. There is not valid IUCN red list category Secure in use. On the other hand there is written in Taxobox documentation not to use Not evaluated (NE) category. Not evaluated category with appropriate reference (with date) is much more usefull than a some unreferenced guess about a secure species. I would like to use Not evaluated category in Taxoboxes. --Snek01 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not evaluated Conservation status 

message: The Northern bluefin tuna is divided into two infra-specific taxa on the IUCN Red List: the Eastern Atlantic stock and the Western Atlantic stock. These two stocks have been assessed with two different levels of endangerment (Endangered for the Eastern stock, and Critically Endangered for the Western stock). Since it seems unnecessary to have two separate articles for these taxa, we're presented with the challenge of trying to figure out how to best represent these data in the taxobox.  Currently, the entire Northern bluefin tuna population's status is listed by IUCN as 'data deficient', so in the spirit of wanting to present more information rather than less, it would be nice to have a method for presenting the conservation status of both stocks in one taxobox. Any ideas on how best to do this? Steamroller Assault (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on the talk page. —Pengo 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Status for Infra-specific Taxa 

message: The text perhaps needs to expand on what exactly should go and not go into the synonyms field. Perhaps this discussion on Talk:Black Drongo could help in improve the guideline. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's consolidate the discussion Wikipedia_talk:TOL#Synonym_field_in_taxobox here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary of what has been discussed so far there- it appears that there is no clarity on whether only "true synonyms" should be included or whether pro parte (or in part) synonyms, ambiguous, nomina nuda and misapplied names could also be included. Shyamal (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonyms field guidelines

message: Am I right to say the following statement is incorrect: Common names of higher taxa are always given in sentence case and in the plural (e.g. Marine hatchetfishes). If so the sentence should be removed. I also think something should be mentioned about the ability for article titles to be italicized when the "name =" field is removed. This is useful for species + genera without a common name. Jack (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about the plural is correct (right?).  As for capitalization, both here and for species, it seems like we should just be referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Common name capitalization (whose rules are kind of complicated/controversial) - in fact generally the name parameter should be omitted as the considerations for picking the article name itself are pretty much the same as for a taxobox name. Kingdon (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now I've thought about it I'm wrong, and was unclear. I was thinking about article titles not being pluralized, rather than inside a taxobox, and was not referring to the capitalisation. One time where the name parameter can be of use is when referencing the common name authority (for e.g. when referencing MSW3), though that can be put into the lead. Jack (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement, and name field 

message: The main Wikipedia SOP has changed, and in fact the "300px" referral to the MoS is false.
By now, almost every infobox outside ToL has been using fixed-width images for some time now, except for emblems, coats-of-arms and other simple graphic designs. Photos and maps in leading infoboxes are generally set to around 250px fixed-width.
It was argued that "users can set their default thumb width, hence the lead image needs no size parameter". But this is vapid, since only a tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers have an user account - most will have the default thumb with, which in taxoboxes a) looks ugly as hell (due to taxobox width > default thumb width) and b) for most images reduces quality to a point where too little detail can be discerned to fulfill the purpose of a lead image.
Judging from the number of WP editor accounts and the Alexa rating of WP, it seems that less than 10% (perhaps as few as 2-4%) of Wikipedia readers can change thumbnail display size. The rest are stuck with 180px thumbnails.
Thus, to agree with the overall Wikipedia MoS and its prevailing interpretation for article lead infoboxes, the policy should be changed to:
* use of the image_width parameter in taxoboxes is not mandatory, but encouraged (as it is the lead image)
* images should not be wider than 300px though
* (from personal experience: depending on image width/heigth and article length, the image_width param should be between 200 and 260px. 200px for images far higher than wide, 260px for images far wider than high and for very very long articles)
It is also advisable - if you have tweaked your user account's display settings extensively - to view your contributions without being logged in. It is nice if the article looks very great under an editor's particular settings, but if 9 in 10 Wikipedia readers get a layout that sucks, it fails the purpose of Wikipedia.
Note that in-text images should still (almost) never have a size parameter, except when it otherwise breaks or messes up the layout, or for images containing lots of detail crucially relevant to the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote, that Statement of principles (SOP) has changed. Where is the updated statement of principles? --Snek01 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See SOP #1. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Compare image code across Wikipedia as of 2006 and as of late 2008. Also compare in-text imagebox code. I think there might have been a global MoS proposal to drop image width altogether around 2007; if so it was repealed or dropped. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You do have to be aware of the history of the image_width parameter. Part of the discussion in question is here for example. As you can see, the ToL policy does not conform to general Wikipedia policy since over a year. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Image" section needs update

message: It's possible to italicise titles of articles but there is no mention of how to do this on this page. I think that these 4 methods cover all eventualities:
* If the "name" section in the taxobox is the same as the article name you can simply remove the "name" section. The article will be the same but the the title will be in italics. Here's an example diff: 
* If the "name" section is a common name  can be put in the article. e.g. 
* If the article title has (genus), (species) or anything else in brackets in the title then  also works - it just changes the first word in the title. e.g. 
* If these don't work there's a manual way using the format: Eurydice (genus) This shouldn't be needed often but I did find some pages. e.g 
This is also posted here. Should this manual be changed to take account of this? I posted at WP:MOS but this is probably a better place thinking about it. Smartse (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Italic article titles

message: I would prefer to see the basionym of a species presented separately from all its other synonyms... What do you think ?Phn229 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of the basionym from other synonyms?

message: Could a field be added for including the translation of the scientific name? I think that it would help a lot of people! Craig Pemberton (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's often harder to find than one might think (without WP:OR).  We do have a List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names which is a few clicks away (follow "Scientific classification" link in the taxobox, then scroll down to "See also"). Kingdon (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingdon's probably right.  The paper containing the original description is probably the only safe source for most taxa.  An etymology section is completely appropriate within the articles if hat's known.  I have done that frequently when working on recently described taxa.  --Aranae (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Those of you using the Operator add-on in Firefox might like to know that there is an updated script to read the 'Species' microformat emitted by the Taxobox. More exciting developments soon! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New script for species microformat 

message: Your input is requested in a final round of testing at .  We are looking for volunteers to check for problems with the code before it is released.  Thanks! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic taxobox