Template talk:Taxobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Microformats
Taxobox is part of, or of interest to, WikiProject Microformats, which encourages the deployment of microformats in Wikipedia, and documents them in the article space. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 

Cacopinae and others[edit]

The template: {{Taxonomy/Cacopinae}} is deprecated, and yet a few other taxonomy templates transclude it. [1]I have no idea where to fix this, since the toolserver link [2] doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talkcontribs) 11 January 2014

This can be fixed by amending the "child taxa" template like this, and then making a null edit on each of the pages that still appears to transclude the deprecated taxon template. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox breaks at te.wikipedia.org[edit]

At the article te:నల్ల_బెండ, Taxobox breaks. Why is it so? I have copied the temmplate as is, and also, it works for all fields in English, once i start adding Telugu, it breaks. --Rahmanuddin Shaik (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The template code examines the content of the regnum parameter to set the colour of the taxobox. In your example, changing regnum from "వృక్ష సామ్రాజ్యం" to "Plantae" fixes the problem. You will need to adjust the template code (in the Telugu version of {{taxobox colour}}) to recognise "వృక్ష సామ్రాజ్యం" and other kingdoms instead of "Plantae", "Animalia", etc. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Piped links to taxon names[edit]

I've noticed many taxoboxes use piped links or link suffixes to link to the common names of taxa, for example [[Animal]]ia or [[Fly|Diptera]]. In my experience this becomes problematic at lower levels because article organization sometimes changes, resulting in a difference between the linked article and the intended taxon. What is the rationale for using piped links are used in this way? Augurar (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no good rationale; it's much better to link to the precise target – in a taxobox the scientific name – and allow the redirect system to find the currently correct article. I used to revert editors who insisted on replacing links to redirects by piped links; MOS:NOPIPE is quite clear, and as noted in MOS:LINK2SECT in a slightly different context, linking through redirects "costs little and makes improvements easier." However, this message seems lost on a sufficiently large number of editors to make this something of a lost cause, and I've more-or-less given up. Whether the message can be put more strongly, I'm not sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been adding these piped links occasionally for some time, but you're both right – it's stupid. I have tended only to do it where the common name is inherently linked to the scientific name (if something were no longer in "Mammalia", we would no longer call it a "mammal"), so the harm should be minimal, but it is also clear that the benefit is also minimal and such links could easily make life difficult later. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dagger Usage?[edit]

In some taxoboxes, such as the one at Tyrannosaurus, there's a dagger (†) next to a few of the classification names. As someone who isn't familiar with paleontology, I had no idea what this meant, and it took me awhile to figure out that it designated an extinct taxon. It's useful information that non-specialist users would find valuable, so I think we should try to make it more accessible. I can think of two ways to do this:

  1. Dejargonize and simply say "Tyrannosaurus Rex (extinct)"
  2. Link the dagger to something extinction-related, like List of extinct species or Extinction.

Perhaps some more experienced editors could weigh in on which might be a better option? And once a decision is made, maybe we could attract the attention of someone with a bot? Origamidesigner (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking to "Extinction" is probably the best option. Abyssal (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Linking it is by far the preferable, and more professional of the options--Kevmin § 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion on this topic at WT:TOL#Extinction daggers in taxoboxes. Several people (including myself) argued that it would be better not to include daggers in the main part of the taxobox at all, but only in lists that include both and extinct and extant taxa, and then only after the symbol has been explained. Linking to anything except is rather easter-egg-y, and will be impenetrable in print, and this particular meaning of that symbol is not widely understood. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)