Template talk:Taxobox
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all Taxobox subpage talk pages should redirect here. |
![]() | Template:Taxobox is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Categories for ESA
Hi, changing the U.S. Endangered Species Act status parameter does not automatically change the article's category: Category:ESA endangered species, Category:ESA threatened species, etc. (not sure if there are categories for delisted or declared extinct). Could these please be added? 108.18.207.147 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've added those categories through the taxobox. Those categories are relatively new (2018) and have never been handled by the taxobox. There aren't equivalent categories for Delisted and Extinct, so I haven't added those. As pages like Pleurobema marshalli have the category set manually (or did until I removed it), there will be duplication of the category setting, but I don't think this causes any issues. Perhaps a bot will pick it up. — Jts1882 | talk 07:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Follow up comments. These categories should be set on pages that can be picked up by the following searches:
hastemplate:speciesbox insource:/status2*_system *= *ESA/ insource:/status2* *= *L*E/
198 resultshastemplate:speciesbox insource:/status2*_system *= *ESA/ insource:/status2* *= *L*T/
53 results
- An issue that arises here is when ESA statuses should be set in the taxoboxes. Should it only be for endemic US species? What is the point of the "DELISTED" status for the Red kangaroo? I think such entries should be removed from the taxobox. — Jts1882 | talk 07:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, "DELISTED" should definitely be removed. In general, proliferation of conservation statuses should be avoided. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Follow up comments. These categories should be set on pages that can be picked up by the following searches:
Taxoboxes for forma specialis taxa
Please see WT:Automated taxobox system#Forma specialis taxa for a question about taxoboxes in articles about forma specialis (f.sp.) fungus taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
IUCN Redlist - now also Green Status
Pygmy hog | |
---|---|
Critically Depleted (IUCN Green)[2]
| |
Scientific classification ![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Class: | Mammalia |
Order: | Artiodactyla |
Family: | Suidae |
Genus: | Porcula Hodgson, 1847 |
Species: | P. salvania[1]
|
Binomial name | |
Porcula salvania[1] Hodgson, 1847
|
The IUCN now includes a Green Status on some of their listings. Maybe only the Endangered ones? I don't know. Anyway, I saw it at IUCN's pygmy hog listing. We may want to incorporate this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's new to me. As far as I can tell it's about conservation efforts, so presumably they only do it on endangered/threatened ones. It might be a while before they get a Fully Recovered status.
- It's possible to include it using the existing system by adding
|status2_system=IUCN Green
and|status2=Critically Depleted
(see taxobox to right). If someone created a set of graphics it could be handled as a recognised system. — Jts1882 | talk 12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Grubb, P. (2005). "Species Porcula salvania". In Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 641. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
- ^ a b Meijaard, E.; Narayan, G. & Deka, P. (2019). "Porcula salvania". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019: e.T21172A44139115. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T21172A44139115.en. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
Rank of infrakingdom
Is there a way the rank "infraregnum" could be added? It is necessary to showcase some disputed taxa like the Apusozoa (infrakingdom Diacentrida, subkingdom Sarcomastigota, kingdom Protozoa). Thanks in advance. —Snoteleks 🦠 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Taxobox | |
---|---|
Scientific classification ![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Clade: | Diaphoretickes |
Subkingdom: | SAR |
Infrakingdom: | Halvaria |
- @Snoteleks: It is already available in {{automatic taxobox}} (e.g. see Halvaria and right). For consistency, it probably should be added to {{taxobox}} as well, although we try and avoid making changes there unless absolutely necessary. Do you need it specifically with a manual taxobox? I think it preferable to make any new taxoboxes with {{automatic taxobox}} so let me know if there is something you need and don't know how to implement. — Jts1882 | talk 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apusozoa uses {{paraphyletic group}}, which is a variant of the manual taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jts1882 Yes, like Uther said, I need it specifically with a manual taxobox for a taxon that is abandoned, and therefore I didn't want to implement the taxon into the automatic taxobox system. —Snoteleks 🦠 17:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apusozoa uses {{paraphyletic group}}, which is a variant of the manual taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{paraphyletic group}} uses the prototype taxobox module (see Module:Biota infobox), which can take manual taxonomy parameters or use the automated system (by setting
|auto=
). I'm surprised that auto wasn't the default as it probably should be. I've updated the module to allow infraregnum with the manual taxonomy parameters (although this won't work with the {{taxobox}} template). — Jts1882 | talk 17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Apusozoa (obsolete paraphyletic group)
| |
---|---|
![]() | |
Apusomonas sp. | |
Scientific classification![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Clade: | Obazoa |
Phylum: | Apusozoa Cavalier-Smith 1997 emend. 2013 |
Groups included | |
Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa | |
- @Snoteleks and UtherSRG:It turns out that Apusozoa is the only example of {{paraphyletic group}} using the manual taxobox parameters. All the others have
|auto=yes
or|auto=virus
. I think {{paraphyletic group}} should be changed to use|auto=yes
by default and require|auto=no
to use the manual taxon parameters if absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary and think it would be better to use an automated taxobox. This makes it easier to review the taxonomies used on Wikipedia. - I'd also question the use of infrakingdom Diacentrida and subkingdom Sarcomastigota for Apusozoa. Neither have articles and it's a different classification to that used in the phylogenetic tree in the article. It makes more sense to place Apusoozoa within Obazoa than in the two paraphyletic Cavalier-Smith taxa, although that could be mentioned as an alternative in the text. — Jts1882 | talk 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't aware para could use auto. Cool beans. As for the classification, I have no skin in the game; I was only helping to explain the OP's request. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jts1882 I understand that, but at the same time, Apusozoa is an abandoned taxon whose only usage is within Cavalier-Smith's hierarchical classification, not the current cladistic classification of eukaryotes. If we apply this rule that every abandoned taxon should be added into the automated taxobox system, we would end up with a lot of outdated para- or polyphyletic taxa whose only parent is Eukaryota or something nearly as big, because its parent taxa are also abandoned. Which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the disputed taxa should intermingle with the automated taxoboxes.
- Would the creation of articles for Diacentrida and Sarcomastigota be a good solution of this? —Snoteleks 🦠 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Snoteleks:, why not put it in Category:Obsolete eukaryote taxa, and remove the taxobox? This is what's done for some other Cavalier-Smith taxa, e.g. Archezoa and Cabozoa.Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- If it is deserving of an article, then I think it should have a taxobox. The taxobox has more information than just the taxonomy and the taxonomy is still relevent if the taxon is no longer used. The question is which deserve articles. I've seen enough independent coverage of Apusozoa to warrant an article, but Diacentrida and Sarcomastigota are little used by others. That is why I think a taxobox reflecting the taxonomy shown in the phylogenetic tree would be better. Just adding
|auto=yes
to the existing taxobox gives a suitable taxobox. I've added it here (see right) with a few tweaks. — Jts1882 | talk 16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)- Okay, I guess that's the more useful outcome. I'll do that instead.—Snoteleks (Talk) 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just noticed, what about Heliozoa? The (non-automatic) taxobox clearly shows Actinopoda and Sarcodina as parent taxa even though those are also obsolete. Where should we draw the line? I think maybe polyphyletic ones such as Heliozoa could retain a non-automatic taxobox, while paraphyletic ones that still "fit" in the Tree of Life (such as Apusozoa, Eolouka, crustaceans, etc.) can be transferred into the automatic system. Does that sound good? —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion has expanded beyond the technical taxobox issue and would be better continued at the WP:PROTISTA project page. I've copied the last part of this discussion into a new topic on Obsolete and paraphyletic taxa and added a reply there. — Jts1882 | talk 09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Snoteleks and UtherSRG:It turns out that Apusozoa is the only example of {{paraphyletic group}} using the manual taxobox parameters. All the others have
Connected taxoboxes
In the article stub about Cytherellidae the taxobox says it belongs to the order Platycopida, which is correct. And the taxobox in the article stub about Punciidae says that too belongs to the order Platycopida, which is wrong. It belongs to the order Palaeocopida. But when I change the info in the taxobox to correct it, the taxobox describing Cytherellidae changes too, from Platycopida to Palaeocopida. And vice versa. The two taxoboxes are connected, so when you edit it in one of the mentioned articles, the same thing happens in the other. Is there a way to separate them? Hipporoo (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipporoo: Fixed. I'm not sure what you tried to changed or where, but you needed to change the taxonomy template for Punciidae. I changed the parent taxon in Template:Taxonomy/Punciidae to Puncioidea, which was already set up correctly as part of Palaeocopida. For more on the use of the automated taxobox system see WP:Automated taxobox system. — Jts1882 | talk 07:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Deprecated vs. discouraged, and should all empty discouraged parameters be removed?
There are many parameters listed as "deprecated" under Template:Taxobox#Template parameters, but they appear in the template code and in the documentation, albeit with heavily caveated use cases. They are:
|image_width=
|image_caption_align=
|range_map_width=
|alliance=
|variety=
|color_as=
plus their numerical counterparts, |image2_width=
, etc.
It would be more accurate to change these to "discouraged", since the only parameter that's actually deprecated, from what I can tell, is |image_size=
, since it has been removed from the immediate (i.e. non-nested) template code and from the documentation.
Related question: should all empty discouraged parameters be removed? I've been removing empty |image_width=
(only) since at least 2020. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: "deprecated" is one of three qualifiers for parameters allowed by TemplateData. The others are "required" and "suggested". I've long thought there should be another qualifier for "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases" (I'm not sure how to name it in a concise way).
|color_as=
is an instance of "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases". I suppose|image_caption_align=
may be as well, but I have never come across it being used in my time on Wikipedia.
- Variety is correctly deprecated;
|varietas=
should be used instead of|variety=
Most of the parameter names for ranks are Latin not English (regnum/classis/ordo/familia, not kingdom/class/order/family with phylum/genus/species being the same in Latin and English).
|alliance=
is also English, but isn't used anywhere. I'm pretty sure I set it to "deprecated" as work-around when trying to find articles that used it and update them to recent classifications that didn't use that rank (the TemplateData Error Report will show articles using a particular parameter/value when a template has few transclusions. When a template has many transclusions (over 50k, I think) the option to see which articles use a particular parameter is disabled unless that parameter is marked as deprecated).
- The "_width" parameters are correctly deprecated. "_upright" parameters should be used instead, although I would say the "_upright" parameters also fall into "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases" (the only reason to over-ride the default image display size is when an image has an extreme aspect ratio (tall/narrow or short/wide) that makes it display very large/small).
- Any of the parameters you've listed should be removed when empty. Almost all the "_width" parameters should be removed even when non-empty (but the image should be checked to see if it does have an extreme aspect ratio that would merit using an "_upright" parameter instead). Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I didn't realize that about TemplateData. Looking through the archives, I found a relevant discussion 5 years ago at #Add support for more sophisticated "required" options, which predicts the need for a "deprecated unless" parameter (oh, you're in that discussion too!), but to submit a bug request on Phabricator. I thought there'd be a much simpler solution to this, so if/when I get around to it, I'll look through phab tickets to see if something like this actually made it there, and go from there.
- I think I'll stick with removing these empty parameters for now, and look for the special cases you mention after. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:,
|color=
meets your stricter definition of deprecated; it's been removed from the template code, and I just removed it from the documentation. It should definitely be removed when empty. It could be removed when non-empty, as it does not do anything. I have been slowly working through the articles with "color = lightgrey" (the only value specified now) and converting them to automatic taxoboxes. I wouldn't mind at all if you got rid of all non-empty instance|color=
now, but it is something I intend to eventually achieve myself if nobody else does it. "image_width=220px" is another bugbear of mine (220 is already the default), that I'm inclined to address with automatic taxoboxes, but wouldn't mind of you went ahead and got rid of it while leaving manual taxoboxes in place. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:,