Template talk:Taxobox

See the template page itself to learn how to use this template.

Suggested parameters

Great work bringing on the new template!... but there are still a couple of parameters missing.

Firstly, I need to be able to specify taxa at "Section" and "Series" rank. See Taxonomy of Banksia for evidence of a number of non-existent species articles, for which these ranks will be needed when I get around to writing them.

Secondly, the "Diversity" option was very useful. I used it at Banksia to state the number of species, since the subdivision was at subgenus rank. It is also very useful for higher taxa such as families and orders.

Thirdly, the "Synonyms" option was also useful, and should be included here.

Snottygobble | Talk 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Diversity option done. Snottygobble | Talk 23:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Section, Series and Synonyms options done. Snottygobble | Talk 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • The "section" rank should have been entered in Latin, so it should have been 'Sectio'. (The sectio templates already existed). I don't think the section and series ranks were added in the right place. At least on the page Taxonomy of Banksia, both ranks are above the Families.
    • Thanks for that, but you lost me in the last sentence there. On Taxonomy of Banksia, Banksia is a genus, and sections and series are subgeneric taxa, just as in the taxobox. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, they are. I misremembered. However, you inserted them at the bottom of the template, below the subspecies level. Eugene van der Pijll 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • So I did; thanks for picking that up. It's fixed now. Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your addition of the diversity and synonym templates inserted more whitespace in taxoboxes not containing these templates. I've tried to remove the whitespace, with horrible effects on Banksia... As that is so far the only page using a new taxobox with these templates, I've subst'ed the taxobox, and repaired it manually. I hope someone knowledgeable in the arcane templating arts can debug the template... Eugene van der Pijll 17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I confess the whitespace was indeed introduced by me, but this was in an attempt to fix the taxobox at Jarrah, which was showing the same horrible effects you saw at Banksia, even though it does not use either of the new parameters. Your fix has destroyed the taxobox at Jarrah once again. I'm going to revert your change. I acknowledge that the whitespace is a problem, but until we can find someone "knowledgeable in the arcane templateing arts" to address this problem properly, extra whitespace is preferable to some boxes not working at all. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, but I thought only Banksia was broken, and I had subst'ed that template out. Anyway, it's been solved now, thanks to Josh. Eugene van der Pijll 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Whitespace problem

Can somebody who understands templates fix it to remove the unattractive extra whitespace please? The most obvious and simple fix utterly destroys the taxoboxes at Jarrah and Banksia, so please take these pages into account when fixing. Snottygobble | Talk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem by including empty comments at the start of each footer template. Josh

• Thanks Josh. Snottygobble | Talk 05:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiSpecies

Shouldn't everything that links to this template be transwikied to WikiSpecies?the1physicist 17:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiSpecies isn't a content fork of Wikipedia. It is a directory, eg. it only includes taxological ranking. --Oldak Quill 18:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

..oh. In that case, I don't see the point of wikispecies since we're duplicating the taxology here.the1physicist 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh... you are not alone... see the mailing list around the time of Wikispecies creation :). Pcb21 Pete 08:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we change the "?"

The first time I saw the question mark in the top right corner of the "taxobox" I thought someone had typed it to question the name of the plant (a sort of "is this really correct?" comment). Then when I saw it a few more times I began to think it was some sort of bug or formatting glitch in the template. Now finally I realise that it's a link to some help. Could we change it to read "help" in some suitably small and unobtrusive font? (Or at least make it look like a question mark icon, or graphic, rather than just text.)

unranked

I'd like to start working the new taxobox into the Primate articles, but there's a hitch preventing me. Several Primate taxoboxes (including the one at Primate itself!) includes an unranked taxon. I recognize the unfeasibility of inserting code into the template between every named taxa for a possible unranked one. Is there another way to get this to work? I've put the new taxobox into Primate, but left it commented out. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Before optional parameters were possible, I used some HTML to put within a parameter. It worked as follows:

Primates
Olive Baboon
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Subclass:	Eutheria
Not ranked:	Euarchontoglires
Superorder:	Euarchonta
Order:	Primates Linnaeus, 1758
Families
15, See classification

As you may see, it works :-). Ucucha (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful! I had tried with wiki syntax. I hadn't thought to "go deeper" and use HTML.... and here I was one of the guys saying we should stick with HTML and not use wiki syntax for taxoboxes.... :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:-). Ucucha (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Eliminating meta-templates

Netoholic created a new version of this page that didn't use meta-templates. This is, of itself, a good thing. Unfortunately the new version didn't work properly; for pages with subdivision lists, like Percolozoa, it created a duplicate of the list above the table. I don't know enough about the alternate syntax to fix the problem, so for the time being I've done a complete revert. However, it would be better if it could be fixed. Thanks, Josh

This is cause by a flaw in the way the template was inserted into the articles. From Percolozoa, the source shows this:

| subdivision = Acrasidae<br>
Gruberellidae<br>
Lyromonadidae<br>
Vahlkampfiidae

It should be:

| subdivision = Acrasidae<br>Gruberellidae<br>Lyromonadidae<br>Vahlkampfiidae

Please correct any occurences of this poor formatting, just like this, but meta-templates are a much bigger problem and we need to move away from them agressively. -- Netoholic @ 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

follow-up: I ran a bot process and I think all of these occurences are fixed. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The page states that meta templates should be avoided, but they should not be avoided at any cost, your CSS hack totally breaks layout in browsers that don't support CSS, which we aim to support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the talk page and look especially for comments from Jamesday. He has asked us to actively remove meta-templates, and Taxobox is the worst offender I've seen. CSS is a reasonable approach which works without straining the servers. As far as CSS support, I have read nothing that we "aim to support" people without it, and every major template relies on CSS. Even still, it won't break for that one guy without CSS, he will simply see all the rows, most empty. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "reasonable" approach inserts a lot of irrelivant garbage into the XHTML output which looks horrid in browsers that don't support CSS, and presumably also screws with screen readers. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It does look horrible in Lynx and possibly worse in Links. I shudder to think what a screen reader would make of it. But there should be a way to do it without, ahh, conditional templates ;-D At least partially - David Gerard 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure if there is something more current, but Wikipedia:Browsers says links/lynx is about 0.03% of our readers as of Feb 2004. Every infobox (converted or not) will look bad on them. Oh well. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's extremly arrogant of you, IMO having the page works properly (i.e. not contain lots of garbage content) and be accessable in all browsers is more important than shaving a few milliseconds off execution time. Accessability *is* important, whether you think people should just use another browser or magically gain eyesight or whatever *annoyed*. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for reducing server load, but not at the expense of editors or visitors. I'm tempted to revert back to your version based upon the screenshot you provided alone. —Locke Cole 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just one question Netoholic: there apppears to be a small white space right around the picture - any way to get rid of that? Also, don't forget about Template:Taxobox begin. --Khoikhoi 20:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the table to use em rather than px as a better way to support various local font setting. I can fill the space with the {{{color}} if that's better. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What about having the image fit so there is no whtie space? --Khoikhoi 20:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By hard-coding the width in pixels, you restrict what a hard-of-sight person can do. They may run their fonts very large locally, yet the table won't adjust. Using em avoids this. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's fine how it is now, then. --Khoikhoi 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic, having the template work properly is more important than having it follow efficiency guidelines. I'm glad you found a work-around for the subdivision problem, but we need a way to split the lists over multiple lines, as some of them are extremely long. I'll try some experiments when I have more time; but ultimately, if meta-templates are the only way to do this, we are going to need meta-templates, plain and simple. Unless we wanted to go back to using Template:Taxobox begin.

In the mean time, I'll leave the new version, but it would be nice if you could try to address Ævar's problems. Also, I'm going to restore Yath's formatting, as the new formatting is plainly disputed above and nobody was consulted before changing it. Josh

Is there any way to get rid of Yath's formatting? I've been trying for 10 minutes. --Khoikhoi 03:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? Josh

Yes, on pages such as Orca there is an extra line in-between the species name and its status. How does one remove that? --Khoikhoi 05:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I see User:UtherSRG has been trying to do the same thing. Does anyone know how? --Khoikhoi 17:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove the < br> in the template. Ucucha (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Where? The only place I can find < br> is further down. --Khoikhoi 20:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see. The Dutch template did have a < br> ;-). I don't know. Ucucha (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a good idea to have a separate template (Template:taxobox2 or so) to test changes before they are changed here? This is a very important template; I think it's better not to fight revert wars on it. Ucucha (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So wait, no one knows how to remove the line between Name and Status? --Khoikhoi 07:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried in taxobox2. Ucucha (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Voalavo antsahabensis Temporal range: Holocene
Conservation status
Not extinct
Scientific classification
Binomial name
Voalavo antsahabensis Goodman et al., 2005

Thank you so much! --Khoikhoi 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in fact wholly unconvinced that it is important to have this template working perfectly - at least, that it is more important than not crushing the servers under painful load. We got by for quite some time without pretty boxes on our taxonomy articles. Perhaps we need to simply return to that time. Alternatively, if Aevar and others were to join in trying to find a good solution instead of shooting solutions down, that would be helpful. Phil Sandifer 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you missed it, but WP:AUM stands for Avoid using meta-templates, not Never use meta-templates. There should almost never be a situation where the quality of the encyclopedia suffers because of developer constraints– this is precisely such a situation where WP:AUM likely does not apply because the alternative is demonstratably worse. —Locke Cole 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia, not to make life easier for the BOFHs. Firebug 01:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And, quite obviously, the solution is to add inherent support for infoboxes (including optional parameters) to the MediaWiki engine, thus avoiding the need for any template hacks. In case you ask why I don't do this myself, it's because my programming skills are in C and assembly, not PHP, and because I don't know how to use a CVS database nor have a server available for testing any modifications to the software. Firebug 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's plainly important to have things work properly. Anybody who changes the taxoboxes without that in mind may as well be vandalizing them, for all the good they're likely to do. That said, the concerns expressed in AUM are worth keeping in mind. I appreciate the work Netoholic has done in letting the taxoboxes confrom to his new version. However, there are three main problems:

• It doesn't work on some browsers;
• It doesn't accept multi-line inputs, which will make lists all but impossible to maintain;
• It messes up some of the formatting.

If anyone has solutions to these, excellent, but I get the impressions none exist. The hidden table sections are simply not as powerful as meta-templates, and we have to decide what to do until we get something that is. These are the three options:

• Keep using the new version, despite its problems;
• Revert to the old version, despite the server strain;
• Revert back to the multi-template system using Template:Taxobox begin, until a better solution emerges.

This is what I think. The meta-template version is definitely the best to use, but if it really consumes signficiant time and money, I don't think we can expect the rest of wikipedia to indulge it. I wouldn't have written it if I though it would be a serious issue. The multi-template system is harder to edit, but at least it works on all computers and didn't require lists stuffed in a single parameter. It's still used on most articles, and I'd suggest we go back to it, until developers add proper infobox support. Thoughts? Josh

Perhaps a compromise? Use the CSS / hidden table stuff where it works, but put in meta-templates/other solutions just for the things CSS doesn't cover right. Are multi-line inputs required in every section of the taxobox or just a few? Could a change be made for the 'standard.css' (or whichever skin) of users with older browsers to strip out undefined items in CSS-style infoboxes? Et cetera. There are going to be issues with any new implementation. Given that this does have performance issues (though I still have no clear idea of how significant they are) we should see if solutions to these glitches can be worked out. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem, the CSS/hidden table stuff doesn't work anywhere. Frankly this WP:AUM crusade Netoholic is on is really bad for the Wiki, far worse than the performance hit IMO. We should wait until there's a viable alternative to templates such as {{if}} and {{qif}} before killing them off (the author of {{qif}} has some code on meta that may help here, but I haven't heard where that's going). —Locke Cole 11:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks. I've brought this discussion over to WP:AUM (Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Section "Alternatives": Problem with CSS). The problem is that Neto is correct because, sadly for me too WP:AUM stands (It's a real pain in my arse but that does not matter). And WP:AUM is backed by an important developer (Jamesday). I know it myself because I'm also an aficionado of qif (I worked on template:book reference, still hoping that can survive) and I would be very glad if developers could implemement something like that in code. I know it's very sad. I've come myself to the conclusion that we better break lynx for now than being without any conditionals in templates. See also that whole discussion on WP:AUM. (Updated) Adrian Buehlmann 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox begin Template:Taxobox begin placement Template:Taxobox regnum entry Template:Taxobox phylum entry
Cavalier-Smith 1991 Template:Taxobox classis entry
Page & Blanton 1985 Template:Taxobox end placement Template:Taxobox section subdivision Acrasidae
Gruberellidae
Lyromonadidae
Vahlkampfiidae Template:Taxobox end It seems a lot of people commenting here are talking about AUM in general, but here we're concerned about taxoboxes in particular. In this case, we can use the old multi-template system, as shown on right. It's comparatively clunky, but it doesn't use meta-templates and works properly on all systems. I think it's the best compromise. Would anyone else who actually uses these things object to reverting to this standard, at least until a real alternative to if templates appears? Josh

I really prefer the newer format for adding taxoboxes. But perhaps we can use a bot to change all existing new-format taxoboxes to old-format ones periodically? If necessary, I can write such a bot. Eugene van der Pijll 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if you could. In the mean time, important pages like dinosaur and protist have been broken trying to figure out how to compress the subdivision lists. So the current version is creating serious problems, and the meta-template version would need to be rewritten, since the conditionals have been removed. As such, I think we have to go back to the multi-template system, and I'm marking this template as deprecated. Josh

Mr. Weeble has come up with a way of doing old-style conditionals without meta-templates. Info on it can be found at Template_talk:Infobox_TV_channel. The basic structure is: {{{dummy parameter{{{Variable|}}}|Text and wikimarkup to be printed if Variable exists}}}. If 'Variable' is passed in to the template then the text is printed, otherwise it isn't. This may be adaptable to fix the subdivision problems with the CSS version. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and put in this code for the subdivision section. Seems to work ok. Take a look and let me know what you think. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me, and it does indeed handle multi-line inputs. If it still uses CSS, of course, it won't work on all browsers, but that can probably be fixed the same way. Josh

There are basically four ways of handling text suppression currently;

1. Conditional meta-templates: Strongly discouraged under WP:AUM.
2. CSS trick: Breaks multi-line text, problems with non-CSS browsers, et cetera.
3. WeebleCode: Requires a dummy parameter be set blank in the call or prints {{{Parameter}}} for any parameters not included in call.
4. Blank default parameter: Can only be used to suppress unpassed parameters, not header text related to them.

This template is currently using the last of those, {{{subdivision|}}}, to get around the multi-line problem. It uses CSS for everything else. WeebleCode might be a viable alternative to CSS throughout, but all calls to the template would need to have a '|weeble=' line or somesuch or they'd print any parameters not passed in. The conditional meta-template method is the only one which works in all cases, but it ought to be possible to mix and match the other three to come up with something servicable in most cases. Or we could wait for some hypothetical change to the MediaWiki software. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Image descriptions

Khoikhoi pointed out that this template was not showing captions below the images the way the multi-line one did. There was an 'image_caption' parameter being passed, but the template was using it as the 'pop up' text which displays when you hover the mouse over the image. Since the captions often contain markup and hyperlinks, which can't be displayed in pop-ups, this didn't work very well. I switched it back to using the 'image_caption' as caption text below the image. I also added an 'image_description' parameter for the pop-up text. An example showing both caption and pop-up can be seen at Sperm Whale. Unfortunately, the pop-up text in all of the old multi-line taxobox calls were lost (and most of them seem to have had it set) somewhere in the conversion to the single taxobox template. I don't know how important people find this pop-up text (it defaults to the image file name), but it can now be set through the 'image_description' parameter. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New bolding & authority entries incorrect with expectations

Well, my expectations at least. "Kingdom:" etc. should not be bolded, but the current version causes such a bolding on Internet Explorer (damn company won't let me use Firefox anymore. (grumble, grumble.) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed to look more like Template:Taxobox begin. --Khoikhoi 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, taxa entries with an authority end up being centered vertically with respect to the taxa's rank; the rank and the taxa name should be on the same level, while the authority should be below. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed both. Are we happy enough with this new version, then, to encourage people to use it, or are there still outstanding issues? Josh

Please leave the row headers (! translates to HTML code <TH>, see meta:Help:Tables). This is very important for screenreaders. -- Netoholic @ 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't display properly on some (uncommon) browsers and the CSS won't be easily portable outside Wikipedia. There is a solution to those issues (see User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox3 for the template and User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox for several calls to it), but it would require adding |if= to each existing and future call to this template. Up to you folks whether the tradeoff is worth it... these issues have no impact on most people. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about a completely different subject. My comment above is about the wikitable markup, not CSS. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please unbold the row headers. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've undone Netholic's changes for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Netholic has redone his changes. I've removed the style change and left the row headers as he wants them. Is there a way to unbold them while keeping the "!" syntax? Unbolded is the standard for taxoboxes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the unbolded row headers just a "standard" because that's how they've unknowingly looked for a long time, or are the standard because this was specifically discussed in the past and decided upon. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Way back when, the taxa ranks were links. When we decided to do away with those links (since most linked to just one article) it was decided that they would be regular text. Not bolded, not italics, not any different in size, just plain text. Regardless, whether the status quo was a decision or not, changing from one format of table to another should not change the way a table is presented. If you want to make a change in the status quo, please discuss it first, don't foist it upon us without some discussion and consent. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What an aggressive response! I've already explained the main two reasons for using proper row headers ("!") - it fits with the wikitable pipe syntax and makes the tables easier on people who may use screenreaders. Do you want to explain what good reason we have to set aside the accessibility benefits? Something better than "I personally feel..." or "that's how it's been for x months" would be nice. Take a look at this explanation for information on why table headers are a Good Thing. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No more aggressive than your change. Whether "!" or "|" is used is keeping with the wikitable pipe syntax, so your point is moot. I've asked if there is a way to keep the "!" but lose the bolding, you were silent. I have no problem with accomodating screenreaders, but I'd like to have dialogue first, then agreement, then change (if agreed). To have the change foisted upon us without discussion, when there has been plenty of discussion about not changing the taxobox without discussion is quite aggressive. So again I ask, is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I know you want to bust out the word "unilateral". Anyway, yes, there are was to de-bold the headers. Are you concerned only for how it looks for you or for everyone? Personally, I doubt most readers would notice or care. -- Netoholic @ 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, "unilateral" hadn't come to mind. Why do you think this is about me, when I'm talking about quite literally years of discussions and changes with the taxobox? And perhaps most readers won't care or notice, but I know you care about screenreaders, and I care about taxobox format maintenance. The new taxobox template style (with your changes) is not consistent with the existing taxobox multi-template style. Yes, I don't like this, and yes, I can only speak for myself. However, I can cite the many dialogues on the subject of changing the taxobox. And yet again: is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few options. First, if you don't like that this template is different than the multi-template taxobox style, we can change those as well. Second, if you prefer them unbolded, I can show you how to change your personal settings in a way that addresses that. Third, I can de-bold them, but that change limits others by essentially forcing a style onto then that they won't be able to customize themselves (see my second point earlier). Fourth, we can just accept, for the time being, that this template have bolded headers (this will be a handy visual clue for anyone doing conversion work). -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just that people are objecting to them being in bold, which CSS can fix. It's that people should be objecting to them because they are semantically incorrect as well. The ! wiki table markup produces the HTML tag not for a table row, but that which means table header in HTML semantics. Many of the places that you are putting the ! markup are not table headers, they are ordinary data cells. For example, for the taxobox "Scientific classification" and "Binomial name" are headers, but not "Kingdom" and the like. David Newton 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Stupid question. Has anyone tried looking at this page with a screenreader? Because Ævar has suggested that the new version may not work with them anyways, and based on the sample of what goes wrong without headers, it doesn't look like it would make this table any harder to understand. And, Netoholic, unilateral action is fine until opposed; it would be nice if you would work with the people who actually use this, of which Uther is notable. Josh

Headers always make every table easier to navigate. Ævar's concern had nothing to do with screenreaders, but there is a method I am working on that will make these work even better for screenreaders (basically setting a parameter that prevents the screenreader from vocalizing hidden content). Please date your posts. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the border around the image. This is contrary to the old, accepted taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox request

Is there anywhere where people not familiar with the taxobox system or taxonomy in general can request a taxobox be added to an article? I consider myself fairly confident with both systems, so I'd like to help out people who are less confident. Perhaps there could be a link on Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox, as this is linked from every existing taxobox and so is a natural place for people to look for help? Just a thought. Soo 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

I have a query on the image captions. Is it neccessary to put the photographer name on the Image caption of taxoboxes a part of the requirement for creative commons by attribution 2.5 licenses ? Shyamal 10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

CSS hack reduces accessibility

I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion. I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.

This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS. This makes Wikipedia less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers. This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:50 Z

EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revert

Given the recent revelations at WP:AUM, I'm proposing reverting this back to this version of the template. Is there any reason this would be bad? I would very much like to avoid the CSS hacks used in the current version of this template. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Template

Hello, there's a problem with this template I think. Everything seems fine in English Wikipedia, however when I set this template with its all sub templates, it shows all the empty taxonomic headers (for ex. shows classis although it's not defined), this is due to the changed style when I log into my account, I mean if I read the article anonimously, everything seems correct. Is there any workaround for this problem?

Here's my template in Turkish: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Taksokutu

--Alperen 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is likely the CSS hack. The way the template suppresses text now is based on a change to the MediaWiki:Common.css to add;

/* hiddenStructure from Monobook - allows selective hiding of markup in templates */ .hiddenStructure {

  display: none;
  speak: none;

}

If the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have that it wouldn't suppress the text and you'd see the extra fields you are describing. That said, Locke Cole is proposing that we revert this template to a version which uses meta-templates rather than the CSS hack... which would remove this problem and others related to CSS. There is currently debate and confusion about the relative merits of CSS vs meta-templates vs 'Weeble' (another option for conditional text). Personally, I think we'll end up with a combination of meta-templates and Weeble (which is really just a sometimes better way of applying the concepts behind conditional meta-templates) and scrap CSS due to it's inherent flaws, but it is still being sorted out. In the interim you can get the kludge above added to the Turkish Wiki or use an earlier non-CSS version of this template. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I realized the hiddenstructure parametre in the template and also realized that the problem was about it :), but I actually had no idea how to get stuff working. A big thank you :) --Alperen 09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)