This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Prior archive: Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_11 (topics of 2008)

Topics from 2009

Schizothorax
	; Schizothorax from Ghori River in Pithoragarh District (India); probably S. plagiostomus or S. richardsonii
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia;
Phylum:	Chordata;
Superclass:	Osteichthyes;
Class:	Actinopterygii;
Subclass:	Neopterygii;
Infraclass:	Teleostei;
Superorder:	Ostariophysi;
Order:	Cypriniformes;
Superfamily:	Cyprinioidea;
Family:	Cyprinidae;
Subfamily:	Barbinae (disputed);
Genus:	Schizothorax; Heckel, 1838
Type species
	Schizothorax plagiostomus Heckel, 1838;
Diversity
	About 60 species

Test2
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae

Rhododendron luteum
	;
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae;
Division:	Magnoliophyta;
Class:	Magnoliopsida;
Order:	Ericales;
Family:	Ericaceae;
Genus:	Rhododendron;
Subgenus:	Pentanthera;
Section:	Pentanthera;
Species:	R. luteum;
Binomial name
	Rhododendron luteum; Sweet
Name GUID
	urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:332818-1:1.1.2.1

Data Deficient category

Is there a reason that this status, given by the IUCN, doesn't have a category? Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I note this is the third time you've asked that question on this page. Maybe it is time we sorted it out. Hang on a sec.... Hesperian 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done:[1]. See Category:IUCN Red List data deficient species. Note that it might take a while for that category to be fully populated, because category updates as a result of template change are not handled instantaneously; they are put in an asynchronous job queue and handled bit by bit.[2] Hesperian 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! The other times I asked the question was, I think, buried amongst other issues. Nevertheless, it's great to see it there. Frickeg (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Name GUIDs for Taxobox

I'd like to add a new section to the taxobox to hold a Name GUID. This would enable authors to link pages about taxa to official nomenclatural databases such as Index Fungorum, IPNI and ZooBank. It would also aid in indexers linking wikipedia pages into other pages that cite the names by GUID.

This is a relatively minor change and I have put together some examples (with and without LSIDs) in my own user space (as per instructions),User:RogerHyam/taxoboxtest and User:RogerHyam/taxobox

I can think of a couple of issues.

1) The LSIDs don't look pretty. We could perhaps hide them behind a icon but that would stop people cutting and pasting them if needed. These are not things you type in. Some one with more template expertise would have to help do an icon based approach. Could we embed the name_guid anywhere else in the taxobox?

2) The LSIDs currently link to RDF via the TDWG LSID resolver. We could link them to the human readable summary page that renders the RDF nicely but that might make it more difficult for machines to follow the link.

It only just occurred to me that we could make this change yet I have been thinking about how to integrate the nomenclators more tightly with Wikipedia for months. I am very excited about the possibility of getting this change in.

I embed and example here:

RogerHyam (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'll leave this comment here and see what people think but having thought it through over some coffee I think maybe a customer GUID template would be better...

RogerHyam (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Other databases tend to use their own taxonomy, just as Wikipedia does. However, I do think it would be useful to link to the first official paper documenting the taxon, when available. If this was done, it would also be useful to indicate the subscription service required, if any, or whether the paper is free for the public to view. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm weakly opposed for now. I don't think it is worth the extra clutter for something that has not yet been widely adopted. On the other hand, one could argue that Wikipedia ought to support this initiative by being an early adopter. I'm somewhat sympathetic to this argument, but if it comes down to this, we should be seeking broader input from WP:TOL. And then the question will remain whether the taxobox is the best place to put it. Hesperian 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see what the value to the reader is. Right now, if I click on that long string (which I agree is ugly), I get some XML document. If this technology is useful at all, I would think it should work more like Wikipedia:Book sources. That is, one way or another let me click over to IPNI, wikispecies, tolweb.org, algaebase, plants.usda.gov, etc. As for an LSID rather than just a species name and author, I guess the reason for that is to avoid problems with "spelling of names or the abbreviation of authority names" (in the words of Biological classification#Globally Unique Identifiers for Names). I'm not sure that is preferable to "just spell the name right" although I'm less sure about the authority names. Kingdon (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!!

I am attempting to copy the template over to RationalWiki. Could someone help me with this? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Trinomial bug

Recently, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that removing the "name" entry from a taxobox in an article that has a scientific-name title will italicize the title. I've noticed that this works for mononomials as well as binomials, but apparently not for trinomials. Example: Atheris nitschei rungweensis. This looks like a bug to me. --Jwinius (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bug because botanical trinomials take the form "Banksia sessilis var. cordata", and italicising the infraspecific rank would be a bug. Hesperian 22:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but couldn't that be fixed if, for example, the template were able to tell the difference between Plantea and Animalia articles?

I suppose so. Hesperian 23:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Superdomain Neomura

Eukaryota, Bird

I want to remove a superdomain in Template:Taxobox. Neomura is clade and not taxon (Cavalier- Smith, 2002). Taxonomic rank for Neomura doesn't exist. Is there evidence that Taxonomic rank for Neomura exists?

Cavalier-Smith, T. (2002). "The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the universal tree and bacterial megaclassification" (PDF). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 52 (Pt 1): 7–76. PMID 11837318.

I'm sorry for my broken English. --Krclathrate (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[3], [4] Hesperian 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Krclathrate (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbiotes

Shouldn't we have a special colour or double-colour for cross-kingdom symbiotes, such as lichens? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbiotes aren't taxa. I don't think they should have a taxobox. Hesperian 22:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree in principle, lichens specifically have taxa.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Lichen, "Lichens are named based on the fungal component" so it seems like the taxobox classification and color should be for the fungus. This appears to be existing practice, at least for the lichen articles I checked, and I see no reason to change it. Kingdon (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably all organisms would qualify. Shyamal (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:-) point taken. Hesperian 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

request for new ranks - branch and grade

I found these ranks in Talk:Lobopodia#Recent classification. is there any evidence that these ranks should be added to taxobox? Ernsts (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that our articles on the respective taxa leave them unranked. Where is the evidence that these are referred to as "branch" and "grade"? The latter in particular surprises me, as grade already has another important meaning in taxonomy. Hesperian 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer :-) . Please note, that I edited the according taxoboxes during the last days. That's the reason for my question. I am not aware about their use in scientific literature, I myself found 'grade' rather unspecific - so if these names are ambiguous they shouldn't be used. Maybe some unranked ranks instead - you might see that I had problems positioning both Bilateria and Protostomia between subkingdom and superphylum.

Also for inclusion of Panarthropoda between superphylum and phylum I used unranked_divisio (a bit tricky). According to unranked_divisio please read my note at Taxobox ranks in wrong order? -- Ernsts (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the opinions of people who edit animal articles, but I would leave Bilateria and Protostomia out of taxoboxes on the grounds that the taxobox is cluttered if it tries to show every branchpoint in a phylogeny. Kingdon (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox color for domain

Is it possible for the auto-color to also accept domains instead of kingdoms? I've noticed a large number of our Bacteria articles still refer to Bacteria as the kingdom and not the domain. Changing it from regnum = Bacteria to domain = Bacteria rids the template of the ability to auto select the color based on the kingdom, e.g. Acaryochloris. Seems like a simple fix, but I'd rather not mess up the template by tinkering with it! --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The current implementation uses logic as follows:

If there is a color/colour parameter, use that argument as the color;

else if there is a regnum parameter, use that argument to choose a colour;

else if there is a virus_group parameter, use that argument to choose a colour;

else if there is an unranked_phylum parameter, use that argument to choose a colour;

else if there is a phylum parameter, use that argument to choose a colour;

else fail.

Note that the first available parameter in the list is used, even if we haven't associated a colour with the value. That is, a taxobox with an "unknown" (i.e. unknown to the colour picker) regnum and a "known" phylum, will use the regnum for pick a colour, and therefore fail, even though the phylum is known.

So the obvious quick fix—to insert a domain line above the regnum line—is problematic because it would screw up all taxoboxes that contain an "unknown" domain parameter and a "known" regnum parameter. Do these taxoboxes exist? Could they be fixed by adding the unknown domain as well? Is every domain associated with a single colour?

You might think that a solution is to append a domain line to the bottom of the list of options, but in that case the domain is unlikely ever to be used, because a known domain would be masked by the other parameters, whether known or not.

If this problem is insurmountable with a quick fix, then we must look at rewriting it to be more flexible i.e.

If there is a color/colour parameter, use that argument as the color;

else if there is a domain parameter, try to use that argument to choose a colour;

if we still don't have a colour and there is a regnum parameter, try to use that argument to choose a colour;

if we still don't have a colour and there is a virus_group parameter, try to use that argument to choose a colour;

if we still don't have a colour and there is an unranked_phylum parameter, try to use that argument to choose a colour;

if we still don't have a colour and there is a phylum parameter, try to use that argument to choose a colour;

if we still don't have a colour fail.

Although not difficult, it is certainly not trivial. I don't mind taking it on, but would like to get people's thoughts on it first.

Hesperian 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In partial answer to my questions above, and demonstration of the problem, if we pass the domain to the colour picker, the taxobox on animal will pass "Eucaryota", and thus fail. And we can't add "Eucaryota" to our colour picker unless we are willing to use the same colour for plants and animals (et al.), which belong to the same domain. This would rather defeat the point of using colours at all.

Therefore I am convinced that a simple fix will not suffice, and a rewrite of this functionality is needed. Hesperian 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a hideous workaround. Hesperian 04:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not add "domain" as second option? The problem here are the bacteria, and that domain doesn't seem to have kingdoms (right?). Viruses don't have domains, so it doesn't block the "virus_group" parameter from being used. The only problem is when there is a phylum and a domain, but no kingdom, and the taxobox should be coloured by phylum. How many cases are that? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the idea that bacteria don't have kingdoms. Cyanobacteria that are treated under the ICBN (not done much any more, but a permissible option) must have a kingdom, which is variously given as Monera, Bacteria, or Eubacteria. Does the bacterial code dispense with kingdom? If not, wouldn't the best fix be to list all bacteria as Kingdom Bacteria as well as Domain Bacteria? AFAICT, there are no rules anywhere against domains with only a single kingdom.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Curtis. Really, no matter how many bacteria kingdoms there are, we need only insert them all into the colour picker to solve this problem... with the sole exception of article bacteria itself. Hesperian 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a strong enough opinion to pipe in, but what's so bad about "kingdom: bacteria" and no domain? The domain and kingdom are both "bacteria" (unless there is some subtlety that hasn't been mentioned yet), but what should get listed in the taxobox is a potentially different question from whether they "have" a domain/kingdom in the abstract. Kingdon (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be looked at from the opposite perspective. What is so bad about "domain: bacteria"? If this is a reasonable thing for a user to put into a taxobox, then it ought not break the taxobox. Hesperian 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting stats on genus/species articles

Shoot me if this makes no sense but I was wondering how to get efficient access to the number of articles with taxoboxes. (Yes, a bot could simply go through the "what links here" but I'm hoping for something a little more permanent.) The objective is to get a rough idea of the percentage of genus/species articles on-wiki. For other large classes of articles (say biographies, albums, songs) rough stats can be garnered by WikiProject tagging but this is not possible in the present case because of the overlapping and fragmented nature of the relevant projects. So I was hoping to exploit the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word and set up something like Category:All disambiguation pages. The idea would be to create some hiddencat, say Category:All articles with a taxobox template and modify the Taxobox template to automatically populate the cat. Thoughts? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get why this is better than "what transcludes here". Hesperian 00:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you probably save about a few hundred clicks every time. One could theoretically get the number of disambig pages using the "what transcludes here" of {{dmbox}} but that would require 3000 clicks each time. I'm not sure how many articles use the taxobox template but we're probably talking about tens of thousands. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get what you're saying. What will a category give you that this won't? Sure, you can only get 5000 results per page, but categories only give you 200 per page. And if you are talking about coding a bot against the API, you're limited to 5000 results per query regardless of whether you are querying links or category membership. Hesperian 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. about 125,000. Hesperian 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get what you're saying now. You want to use PAGESINCATEGORY instead of counting. I guess the issue is whether it is worth it just to get a count. Personally, I have no objection to it. Hesperian 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, that's the idea. I must agree that the advantage is marginal but content-statistics are really lacking and I'm hoping that we can get a few things set up to try and correct that. A similar set-up could easily get a realtime count of the number of stubs, lists, etc. All of these, I think, would help in explaining to the general public what these 2.8M wiki articles are. But I guess I should take that discussion to the village pump... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision ranks

It's probably me missing something simple, but can anyone suggest why the subdivisions aren't showing up at Monoplacophora and Neopilina? I've specified subdivsion_ranks and subdivision... The params work fine at, e.g., Cephalopod Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that {{Paraphyletic group}} doesn't recognize the subdivision_ranks and subdivision parameters. I'm sure it could be added, or you could switch them to {{Taxobox}}. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted - thank you. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CITES

At present, when you give the taxobox a "CITES_A1" status, the taxobox renders "Appendix I" but does not mention or link to CITES or give any other context. This is too vague. I am going to change it so that it renders "CITES Appendix I". I will be bold and make the change immediately because I can't imagine how this change could possibly be controversial, and I think by now I have demonstrated that I am capable of editing the taxobox without fucking up. If anyone objects to this change, by all means revert me, or ask me to revert myself, and we can discuss it here. Hesperian 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound controversial to me, but if you want to give an example or two of pages which use that status, I'd be glad to glance at them. Kingdon (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cattleya trianae, Paphiopedilum gratrixianum, Paphiopedilum charlesworthii. Hesperian 04:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility support

As per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, images in this infobox should have alt text if the images have a function (and are not purely decoration). This infobox can generate several functional images, for the main and subsidiary images and for range maps, and there should be a way to specify alt text for all of them. Also, this image can generate nonfunctional images for the extinction status, and these need to be marked as nonfunctional using "link=".

I've prepared changes to implement this in the sandbox, and have tested them using the test cases, and have updated the documentation accordingly. Can you please install the template changes into the main version? The easiest way to do this is to copy the sandbox into the main version, but remove the "/sandbox" in the sandbox copy first. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems redundant to me. There's already a caption which ought to be utilized. Why do we need a second caption? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Captions and alt text have quite different functions. Alt text is meant for people who can't see the image (e.g., the visually impaired), and describes only what the image looks like. Sighted readers don't need alt text (because they can see the image) and don't want to waste screen space on alt text. A caption explains the image, and is useful to both sighted and visually impaired readers. For example, the caption for Image:Flag of Ireland.svg might be "The national flag of Ireland was adopted in 1919." whereas the alt text might be "Vertical tricolor flag (green, white, orange)". Please see the WP:ALT guideline for more information on alt text.
Support for alt text has been added recently to the underlying MediaWiki software, and has been added to several Wikimedia infobox templates, including {{Infobox artwork}}, {{Infobox bridge}}, {{Infobox Country}}, {{Infobox Disease}}, and {{Infobox Museum}}. Is there anything about {{Taxobox}} that would make it different from these other templates?

Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken

{{taxobox|name=Test}}

Something is causing some extraneous text to show. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That happens when the template can't automatically figure out the color and doesn't have an input. E.g. a taxobox with | regnum = [[Plant]]ae will look fine. Did you have a specific instance of this? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Added an Automated Archiver

Added an automated archiver, User:MiszaBot/config, set at 7 days, it'll stop leaving 4 threads left if discussions slows. Moved archive subpages so that they'd appear in the {{archives}}, marked the redirects for deletion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

7 days is a bit excessive for a low-churn page like template talk. I've bumped it to 31. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've bumped it to 180 days: already 12 archives in 4 years (!). I edited the various archive files (kids, don't do this) to have 2008 in /Archive_11, and I put all of 2009 into /Archive_12, but with 12 archives, some contain only 2 topic threads. Year 2006 is actually split across 8 files: in Archive_1 to Archive_8. All topics could have been just 4 archive files, with the 4th as 2009. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You changed the notice, but you didn't change the bot; I've fixed this now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

what happened here?

Can someone help me out with what happened here? I changed the name of the species in keeping with the move and also made the link to animal not a redirect and the taxobox went crazy. Changing animal back to a redirect made it all go back to normal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The template that automatically figures out what color to pick for the taxobox, {{taxobox colour}}, only recognizes a few phrases. It would have recognized either [[Animalia]] or [[Animal]]ia but not [[Animal|Animalia]]. Since this seems like a common construct and things editors do shouldn't break the taxobox, I added the latter to the template's list of strings to recognize. The most common construct and the simplest is perhaps [[Animal]]ia, just like in plant articles we use [[Plant]]ae. Hope that helps explain it! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN. ;-) Hesperian 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see! That makes sense. [[Animal]]ia is a much more elegant way of skipping the redirect anyways. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Switch "diversity" and "type species" parameter sequence please

The type species should really appear as first item under the break after the article taxon and its author. It looks crappy now, with the type species being listed under diversity.

Reading flow is impeded, as the "type_species" section is an equivalent of the "binomial"/"binomial_authority" section of species (and "trinomial" of sspp.), while the "diversity" section is an equivalent of "subdivision_ranks" (I use it whenever there are more than 5 subordinate taxa or so) and links out of the taxobox. Therefore, each should hold the same position as their equivalent.

{{editprotected}}

Proposed sequence of taxobox sections is thus:

Name
Image
Status
Classification
Binomial/author OR trinomial/author OR type species/author (these are mutually exclusive - used for species, subspecies and anything above species, respectively)
Diversity/subdivision_ranks (these two are mutually exclusive in practice; it makes little sense to use both in one taxobox)
Map
Synonyms

This would probably be accomplished by moving the following:

 {{#if:{{{diversity|}}}|
 ! [[{{{diversity_link}}}|Diversity]] {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} | {{ns:0}} | [[Category:Articles using diversity taxobox]] | }}
 {{!}}- style="text-align:center;"
 {{!}} {{{diversity|}}}}} 
 |- style="background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"

to below

 ! [[Biological type|Type strain]]
 {{!}}- style="text-align:center;"
 {{!}} {{{type_strain}}}}}
 |- style="text-align:center;"

i.e. before

{{#if:{{{range_map|}}}|

amirite?

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind illustrating the perceived problem and proposed solution via printed screens? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Disabled request for now. Please discuss and replace the request if/when you have consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Schizothorax for the current version, here for the proposed change. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support. I think the type species, as you have suggested, should be listed before the rest. Perfectly logical to me. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Support. Sounds like a good idea. –Visionholder (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Support mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Support. Diversity should really be directly prior to subdivision ranks. In your example, there may be subgenera or species complexes that can be used in the subdivision ranks section, but the number of species in that scenario is still a useful bit of information. To clarify my "vote" - I support the change as proposed because this is clearly an improvement, but I also suggest a specific location for "diversity" relative to the parameters not discussed. --Aranae (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with that. With your username, you've probably come across more "diversity" sections in taxoboxes than most. Sarefo uses them almost by default, and though I was reserved at first, he convinced me to use them too. (Actually, I think I proposed the same you do now some some time ago) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as above. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The change proposed would additionally involve shifting

 {{#if:{{{subdivision|}}}|
 ! {{{subdivision_ranks}}}
 {{!}}-
 {{!}} style="padding:0 .5em; text-align:left;" {{!}}
 {{{subdivision|}}} }}
 |-style="text-align:center; background:{{{color|{{{colour|#{{Taxobox colour|{{{regnum|{{{virus_group|{{{unranked_phylum| {{{phylum}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};"

to immediately above the "diversity" section.

Only "Synonyms" would then be below the maps. But that section is probably the one the average user needs least, so it doesn't hurt. Some who do synonym-rich taxa deal with it in the maintext exclusively; the Dino project for example IIRC. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make a quick comment lest I be viewed as any sort of expert on this subject. I mostly work on rodents and had not noticed the diversity parameter prior to this discussion. The username is an old, intentionally misspelled nickname, based on how I wrestled way back in high school. --Aranae (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Demo

Demonstration

I've implemented the change at User:Hesperian/Taxobox. Here is the proposed diff.[5]. The taxobox on the right uses this code. The changes are slightly different from what is stated above. If I can get confirmation that this meets the request, I'll push it in. Hesperian 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually like it better this way - without the linebreak behind the type species' scientific name. No need to waste a line of screen for that information. Totally gets my vote ;) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)