Template talk:Taxobox

Extinction categorization

I know we have the extinct parameter for date of extinction, why don't we have a related categorization system? This could provide some very interesting reading and tracking capability. Werieth (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What type of categorization system are you thinking about?--Kevmin § 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Implicit clear right

An image of Dyer's Broom I added left-aligned to the stubby article on Genista tinctoria.

There appears to be an implicit {{clear right}} for {{Taxobox}} vs. infoboxes based on {{Infobox}}. Is this a purposeful design choice? If not, could something fix it? If this behavior is intended, what's the rationale? Thanks. 67.101.5.148 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Yes the taxobox is set up to display to the right of the page. It is the same of (I think) all infoboxes, eg biography and trains and ships etc...--Kevmin § 23:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox 2013

I would like to suggest rewritting taxobox and to use Lua+Wikidata.

• The current template uses many ParserFunctions and isn't efficent, using Lua could improve it.
• Using Wikidata as a source for the template (while still allow overriding locally Wikidata parameters) would allow filling image, range map and other parameters in central repository (Wikidata)
• A draft for the new template is in Module:Taxobox. You can try it in Gyps fulvus by adding {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox}}. (and preview without save!). This is just a draft - it doesn't (yet) support all the parameters of taxobox and not all the parameters are "backward compatible" (yet).
• Another benefit as you may notice by the above example - moving the parameters to Wikidata instead of filling them within the editbox will remove a lot of "template mess" - which could improve the editing experience (especially for novice editors)

Eran (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "template mess" is much of an issue. I'd rather the parameters be available to edit within the editbox so that any novice editor can easily update the taxobox without having to jump to Wikidata to do so. I supported the efforts of the {{Automatic taxobox}} in its removal of the classification parameters to template space because it increased the function and consistency of the project if applied correctly, making it much easier to update all taxoboxes once there's a classification shift, as well. The autotaxobox also made a great attempt at helping new editors understand the process. I'm not sure shuffling all of the parameters off to Wikidata for the sake of reducing editbox clutter has a point, exactly, unless I've missed something in your message.

I suppose my question would essentially be: under the new scheme, what, exactly, would the process be for an editor who wanted to change a parameter for a taxobox? Would you characterize it as more difficult or less? Would it be more intuitive or less? Would we be fielding more "how do I change this?" questions, or less? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Template mess" isn't the primary issue here. I didn't know about {{Automatic taxobox}} but as I understand it, both templates support less "template mess". Comparing the module to the automatic taxobox - both have the same advantages (as described in Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/about), and the Module with Wikidata approach is just better in points 1,2,4 in the costs (as described there)
  • Wikidata is database, and Template namespace isn't - so it should be more efficient to use it
  • Using Wikidata can improve the consistency of the project in wide-scale (all languages, and isn't limited to English Wikipedia), which automatic taxobox can't.
  • Having the data in central repository means that more eyes can review it, and update the classification once there is a classification shift.
• "How do I change it?" - The user gets to wikidata (either using "Edit links" in the sidebar or a new small link from the template "[edit]"), and edits the fields there using wikidata interface ([edit] near the field to change, or [add] - to add a claim (=fill a new parameter)). Wikidata have auto-suggestion for filling the parameters name, so it should be easy to fill it.

Eran (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this might be a point to focus on - could Wikidata parcel out classifications for different language Wikipedias? They will not all agree on a single classification scheme for plants, for example. de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia use different systems. Databases are nice when everyone agrees - that's not true in taxonomy! I'm still not sure this is the right approach for all parameters. Moving classification to our makeshift template namespace forced "database" in the automatic taxobox only seemed like a fine choice for the trade-off of making it a bit more difficult and less intuitive to edit. But the remaining parameters? I don't see a need for them to be included in a database. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How does your proposal handle:

• Extinct taxa
• fossil ranges
• authorities
• The ranks of section (ICZN) vrs section (ICBN)
• Subdivisions between the major taxonomic ranks
• Clades, stemgroups, and crown groups.
• Taxonomic conflicts
• Names used for multiple organisms governed by different codes (ICZN/ICBN/Bacteria)
• Oh and I would not by any stretch consider Wikispecies authoritative or to be linked ot in the taxobox.
• And WHY its the species rank at Gyps fulvus displaying as "Griffon Vulture"? It should display Gyps fulvus there. Ditto for the genus rank, which diplays "Vulture" and not Gyps.

--Kevmin § 07:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Extinct taxa - I have now added extinct parameter, which is displayed only if the IUCN status=EX. It doesn't fill the parameter according to wikidata (yet) because I'm not sure whether there is such property in wikidata. can be specificied manually with {{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox|extinct=1900}} (will not work in Gyps fulvus as the status isn't EX)
• fossil ranges - added it now again it can be specified manually. (again - with no wikidata property exist yet for this)
• authorities - binomial_authority is already supported. To see it in Gyps fulvus - either add manually ({{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox|binomial_authority=[[Carl Ludwig Hablizl|Hablizl]]}}) or fill the binomial authority in Wikidata. [I can fill it myself, but maybe you should do, so you could tell whether it is easy enough to fill parameters with widata. Edit link to wikidata was added to make it easier to get there thanks to Rkitko comment]
• The ranks of section (ICZN) vrs section (ICBN) - it isn't support yet. What is the corresponding parameter in Taxobox and can you give an example of article that uses it?
• Subdivisions between the major taxonomic ranks - I wasn't sure here what are taxonomic ranks between, but it could be very easily added to "classificationParam" in the Module:Taxobox (line 49) to support other taxonomic ranks. If you mean subdivisions of the taxon (subdivision_ranks+subdivision params), the module supports the main subdisions with manual parameters (Phyla,Classes,Subclasses,Orders,Families,Genera). For example in Aves it can be filled with

{{#invoke:Taxobox|taxbox|Subclasses=
*{{extinct}}[[Archaeornithes]] [[Paraphyly|*]]
*{{extinct}}[[Enantiornithes]]
*{{extinct}}[[Hesperornithes]]
*{{extinct}}[[Ichthyornithes]]
*[[Neornithes]]
}}

• Clades, stemgroups, and crown groups - I can't find in Template:Taxobox parameters for this. If you mean "subdivision_ranks=Clades...", then see the previous point
• Taxonomic conflicts - How does the current template handles it?
• Names used for multiple organisms governed by different codes (ICZN/ICBN/Bacteria) - How does the current template handles it?
• Wikispecies link- Removed.
• Gyps fulvus displaying as "Griffon Vulture" and not Gyps fulvus: The template fills automatically according to Wikidata label of those entities. To correct it, the labels for those entities in Wikidata should be changed accordingly.

Thanks for your comments. Eran (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you set up examples for Phacops (an extinct genus in an extinct genus in an extinct subphylum), and Margaretbarromyces an extinct genus unplaced as to family but placed in a living order.
• Regarding authorities, how would your system handle Marrella which has multiple authorities listed?
• For the problem with "Section" and for infrataxonomic ranks, see the pages Section (botany) and Taxonomic_rank#All_ranks. An example of the botany sections can be seen at List of Acer species. There are a number of extra subranks between the major 8 that are used.
• On a related note, for clades, take a look at Coelurosauria, a clade of Theropods, clades are taking a larger and larger role in a number of fossil taxa fields.
• The status=ex is good for taxa that have gone extinct after ~1600, but is not used for taxa extinct before that as they are not covered in any of the "redlist" databases.
• As for names used in multiple codes see Pieris, Pieris (butterfly) and Pieris (plant)
• For taxonomic conflicts see Prototaxites
• The box should always use the scientific names and not the vernacular names.--Kevmin § 17:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please slow down! There are two main aspects to the proposal: changing to Lua and using Wikidata.

• Changing the automatic taxobox system (and it is a system) to use Lua should be the first priority. There have been problems in the past with resource limits being reached. Some steps which could usefully be automated can't be at present because the templates would exceed the maximum expansion depth.
• Switching to Wikidata for the automatic taxobox system needs some more thought. It is important to allow different taxonomic hierarchies to be used in different areas and in different language Wikipedias. As one example, in the English Wikipedia we have pretty strictly used APG III for extant angiosperms, but the classification system used by reliable sources for early land plants doesn't fit well with this. The taxonomy templates have a degree of flexibility that I think will be hard to implement in a "proper" database (but not impossible with careful design).
• The non-automatic taxobox system, i.e. the "normal" taxonomy templates, can certainly be converted to Lua, but they should of course not use Wikidata, just as they don't use the taxonomy templates. Taxonomies and classifications are a matter of opinion, and editors need to be able to reflect changing reliable sources, which are not always consistent with one another.

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As much as I like the automated taxoboxes, I agree with Peter Coxhead embracing Wikidata outright could potetialy be a bad move. Perhaps it will turn out to be beneficial in the future, but for now I think we need to slow down and see how things evolve before jumping in.

I have no opinion on Lua. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to replace the current template with a new template that is fully completable with the current template (support the same parameters), that will use Lua to improve the performance. The new template, at least in the beginning, will use wikidata as a fallback - if the data isn't filled locally. Wikidata isn't yet ready to support all the features requested/mentioned above, and of course sometimes the taxonomic classification differ between different Wikipedias (though there are many more cases where they do agree). Eran (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox bug with image maps

Squirrels
Various members of the family Sciuridae
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	... etc. ...
Family:	Sciuridae Fischer de Waldheim, 1817

I tried to add an image map for the Taxobox image. It works but extraneous text is displayed. I tried various experiments and couldn't get rid of the extraneous text. Perhaps I have done something wrong or perhaps the problem is with the image map. The edit in question is below above. --Davefoc (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a bug. If you look at the documentation (at Template:Taxobox#Images) you'll see that the parameter is supposed to be just the file name, not even the prefix "File:" or "Image:". So it's not supposed to accept an image map. To make the template accept an image map it would need some re-writing. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• ( Davefoc, please forgive my refactoring of your taxobox – I commented out a bunch of lines to simplify the example. )   Peter coxhead is correct. If you were to type "|image=[[File:Sciuridae.jpg|240px]]", you will get the same result. Having said that, however, I really like what you are trying to achieve, and it got me thinking. I've looked at the code to Template:taxobox/core, and the "re-write" turns out to be trivial. This problem... er, design feature... exists not just in {{taxobox}}, but also in all infoboxes.

Your timing was great, because I encountered this exact problem with {{Infobox settlement}} just two days ago, where I tried to pass a template – {{superimpose}} in my case - attempting to "modularize" a set of locator maps: the base map would be combined with one or more overlay(s) to produce a combined "image". That might prove useful with range_maps in taxoboxes, where we could use wikitext (instead of graphic software like Gimp or Inkscape) to combine the ranges of several species into a single range map for their genus page, for example, or to standardize some of the more common base map imagery. In my case, I tried to combine the following two images:

 +   → and the resulting Infobox (on the right) has a familiar signature!

Provincetown, Massachusetts
Nickname:  "P-town" or "P'town"
Motto(s):  "Birthplace of American Liberty"
Settled	1700
Incorporated	... etc. ...

As I mentioned, it's trivial to enable support for templates, image maps, within {{taxobox}}: We'd simply define one new variable for each 'image' and 'map' field that is in the parameter list for the taxo- or info-box:

|image_raw=yes – (default: "no"); setting this to "yes" (or "true") instructs the template to consider the text of |image= as "raw" wikicode to be inserted verbatim into the taxobox. The default behavior treats it as a simple filename (which gets placed inside of a "[[File:...|240px]]" wrapper). This parameter is only useful when implementing more advanced image manipulation (e.g., with <imagemap>...</imagemap> or with image templates like {{superimpose}}).
|image2_raw=yes – ... ditto. ...
|range_map_raw=yes – ... ditto. ...
|range_map2_raw=yes – ... ditto. ...

Would anybody find this capability useful, besides and me and Davefoc? Or, does anyone foresee any issues with the idea, or have a better name for the variable(s)? If there's interest, I can code/test a sandbox... (I'd float this idea over on the Infobox template separately, but thought I'd gauge initial reactions here first.) Grollτech (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple, because many "taxobox templates" use {{Taxobox/core}}, and to maintain consistency of parameters, every one will need to pass on the new parameters you add. Since some of these are part of the "automatic taxobox system" (e.g. {{Automatic taxobox}}, {{Speciesbox}}, {{Subspeciesbox}}, {{Infraspeciesbox}}), testing will need to check for resource issues.

I'm also somewhat concerned that this will lead to editors putting inappropriate items into taxoboxes; once "raw" code is passed, anything is possible. It seems to me that if you want to include a complex range map, for example, it's best put into the text of the article, not into the taxobox, which is intended to provide a quick overview.

It would be good to get some more views on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Domain

Please add in the domain. It's missing but it's an integral component to taxonomy. I would do it myself but I don't understand wikipedia programming language.