Template talk:Speciesbox/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Default number of parent taxa displayed

Normally, the number of 'parent' taxa forced to be displayed above the taxon that is the target of the taxobox is set to 1. So if the target of the taxobox is a genus (i.e. {{Automatic taxobox}} is used) and its parent happens to be a tribe (which would not normally be displayed as it's not a 'major rank'), then the tribe will be shown, but not, say, a subfamily above the tribe.

Until December 2016, the same applied to the case when the target of the taxobox was a species (i.e. {{Speciesbox}} was used), with one complication: when the article was at the genus, the norm for a monospecific genus, the system was supposed to show 2 parents above the species, i.e. 1 above the genus. This only worked when the article's title was the scientific name, so that "Template:Taxonomy/article title" had |rank=genus. It meant that an article like Sperm whale, for example, didn't show the subfamily by default, although it would have had it been at Physeter.

I noticed this inconsistent behaviour; it was particularly obvious when comparing articles about monospecific plant genera, which are mainly at the scientific name, and articles about monospecific animal genera, many of which are at the English name.

So, without thinking through the consequences properly, I made the default always 1 parent above the genus, i.e. 2 above the species. I did comment briefly on the change above.

Following a question from ErikHaugen, I now think this was wrong, but I'd like some views before restoring the old approach. The options are:

1. Always default to 1 parent above species, without trying to detect whether the article is about a monospecific genus. Over-ride with |display_parents=2 or more when needed.
2. Restore the previous logic; {{Speciesbox}} defaults to 1 parent above species, i.e. 0 above genus, unless the article is at the scientific name of the genus, when the default is 1 parent above genus. If this is too few, including when a monospecific genus isn't at the scientific name, over-ride with |display_parents=2 or more.
3. Continue as now; {{Speciesbox}} always defaults to 2 parents above species, i.e. 1 above genus. If this is too many, over-ride with |display_parents=1.

Example

Consider the case where the taxonomy template for the genus has a tribe as the parent.

Is the tribe above the genus displayed by default?

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Species not in a monospecific genus	no	no	yes
Species in a monospecific genus with the scientific name as the article title	no	yes	yes
Species in a monospecific genus with an article title that can't be determined to be a genus	no	no	yes

Comments please. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC) (table added by Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC))

Peter, this is pretty technical, I feel the need for a wet towel to place on my head as I try to ponder the alternatives. I imagine that relying on overrides is undesirable, but this affects all options. I'd be happy for you do go away and do anything that you think sensible, but it would be desirable for more people to be able to share in the decision. Could you give examples to illustrate what each of your three options would mean (possibly for both the favourable and the unfavourable consequences of each)? That might make it easier for people to reason about the choice. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: ok, but it will be tomorrow now before I get to look at this. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this explains why Pinus rigida is showing a subfamily. I was trying to figure that out yesterday. I don't like option 3 as I'm not accustomed to seeing |display_parents= used to supress display of extra ranks. I'm leaning slightly towards 1 over 2, as it seems to be more consistent with what needs to be done anyway when there is monotypy at ranks above genus. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: yes, {{Speciesbox}} never tried to deal with monotypy above genus, but if the idea was to show one rank above a monospecific genus, there was no reason not to show one rank above a monogeneric family, etc.

However, Pinus rigida illustrates a different historic oddity with {{Speciesbox}}, namely that for a subgenus, there are two different methods of putting it in the displayed taxobox: (1) have a taxonomy template for the species with the parent set to the subgenus (2) put the subgenus directly in the call to {{Speciesbox}}. This is an oddity, because for other subgeneric ranks, like section or series, you can't use method (2), you have to use method (1). One of the consequences of method (2) is that |display_parents= doesn't count the subgenus; if method (1) is used, then it does, so the subfamily wouldn't be displayed.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 does seem the least surprising, although there might be something going on here I don't understand. But if we decide we want certain behavior generally, e.g. (3), then I guess the system might as well make that default behavior the easiest outcome. I don't have strong feelings about that either way. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I now think that I made the wrong decision in going for option (3). Option (2) violates the "least surprising" principle, for sure, since its behaviour depends on the article title, not how the taxobox is set up. So although there haven't been many comments, there does seem to be support for option (1), and I have changed the code accordingly. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

New parent parameter

The Speciesbox template was designed to avoid the need for a taxonomy template for a species, since the parent taxon of a species can almost always be found by taking the first word in the binomial. One good reason to avoid species taxonomy templates is that they are only ever used in the species article, and a template with a single possible use just makes extra work for everyone.

Up to now, if the parent taxon was at a rank between species and genus, e.g. a subgenus or a botanical section, it was necessary to create a species taxonomy template, and then use {{Automatic taxobox}} to pick up this template. However, this is equally undesirable, since the species taxonomy template can still only ever be used in one article.

To deal with this issue, I've added |parent= to Speciesbox. When the parent taxon is below the genus in rank, this new parameter should have as its value the name of the parent taxon, exactly as in the title of the parent's taxonomy template.

See Template:Speciesbox#Parent taxon is not the genus for a more detailed explanation.

(A side-effect is that |subgenus=, which dealt with the special case that the parent taxon was a subgenus, is now unnecessary.)

The only situation in which a species taxonomy template is still needed is when the species name is not a straightforward binomial. This is the case for viruses, which don't use binomial nomenclature for most species. It's also the case when a species name uses the ? notation, as at Halictus? savenyei, or uses "...", as at Crocodylus affinis.

Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

sectio parameter

Could the parameter |sectio= be added? I'm attempting to use it at Ribes aureum, but it's not in the template code. — Eru·tuon 06:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon:, see two threads above. The way to implement infrageneric classification now involves use of |parent= and creating taxonomy templates for the appropriate infrageneric ranks (Template:Taxonomy/Ribes subg. Ribes and Template:Taxonomy/Ribes sect. Symphocalyx in this case). However, I've been avoiding using speciesbox on any species article that displays infrageneric ranks; I'm not certain that infrageneric classifications are necessarily recent or stable (they're usually not supported by references if they're even discussed in a genus article at all). It's even rarer for them to have an article; use of |parent= forces the infrageneric taxon to be linked, while with |subgenus= it can be left unlinked. While the link could be a redirect, at the moment, Ribes doesn't discuss infrageneric classification, so I'd be hesitant to create redirects there for subgenera/sections. Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Hmm. Ribes sect. Symphocalyx contains only Ribes aureum, so it may never have a link. I suppose it could redirect to the species page. — Eru·tuon 17:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon:, yes, if the section is monotypic, just redirect it to the species. That still leaves the subgenus needing to be discussed somewhere. Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

includeonly

@Peter coxhead: In this edit you introduced the nowiki workaround, but also removed an <includeonly> tag. Was removing the <includeonly> tag on purpose? The closing tag is still there (without an opening tag). Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It was an error; there's no point in showing the "edit the taxonomy template" icon when viewing the template page itself. I've restored the tag. Good catch! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect family for Macquaria

The species box renders the incorrect family when used for each of the four species in Macquaria. Instead of the correct family as Percichthyidae, it renders Scienidae. This is incorrect, yet I could not find any errors in the coding at each level. I admit my knowledge of how this template works is rudimentary, however. I have added "parent = Percichthyidae" to the species box for each species, but I dislike hard coding, so if someone can fix the template I'd be happy for this to be removed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done The changed family was because that's what was then at Template:Taxonomy/Macquaria. I don't know why William Avery put "Scienidae" as the family, but FishBase has "Percichthyidae" so I changed it.

You can find and fix such errors if you click on the "red pencil" icon in an automated taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, it had me stumped, but now I know a little bit more so all good! - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't think what happened there, I seem to have had a funny turn. I have also corrected:

• Template:Taxonomy/Maccullochella
• Template:Taxonomy/Suttonia
• Template:Taxonomy/Rypticus
• Template:Taxonomy/Pseudogramma
• Template:Taxonomy/Guyu

William Avery (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Synonym lists

Is there a better way for displaying a long list ?? I recently added to Glaucium flavum, but now feel the list may over shadow the notes. DavidAnstiss (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You can make the list collapsible (which is slightly tricky to do, but possible). However, this appears to be in contravention of MOS:COLLAPSE, which is why if you try to use the obvious approach, i.e. using {{collapse}}, it tells you that it can't be used in article text. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's arguable that long lists of synonyms really belong at Wikispecies, not here. We should list those that are commonly found in the literature – commonly enough to be worth a redirect. Googling "Glaucium luteum", for example, throws up some images that are clearly Glaucium flavum (see e.g. this one), so this is a notable synonym. However, deciding which synonyms to include is not easy. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how to do with Candidatus

How do you do a Speciesbox with a species in a genus with Candidatus status? I was trying to upgrade Candidatus Phytoplasma solani, which should display a binomial as that or Ca. Phytoplasma solani or Ca. P. solani. The genus' article is just Phytoplasma. Didn't see anything in the advanced taxonomy template features FAQ about it. I made Template:Taxonomy/Candidatus Phytoplasma point to Template:Taxonomy/Phytoplasma with same_as. Should I have done it the other way around? Is it because the page is at Candidatus Phytoplasma solani and not Phytoplasma solani? Nessie (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is that you can't use {{Speciesbox}} in this case. The longer answer is that {{Speciesbox}} assumes that the "genus" part of the name is a single word that is the same for the genus and the species, whereas in this case the taxobox should show:

Genus: Phytoplasma

Species: Ca. P. solani

It would be possible to construct a different template, "Candidatusbox", just as we have {{Subspeciesbox}}, {{Hybridbox}}, etc., but personally I don't think it would be worth the effort. Trying to deal with every possible variation within the autotaxobox system just makes it even harder to maintain and use than it is now. Some special cases are best handled by manual taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

Error {Placeholder error message}. The error is appearing in this template, if the parent or genus parameter is empty.

{{speciesbox
| color_as         =
| name             =
| taxon            =
| authority        =
| parent           = 
| fossil_range     =
| image            =
| image_width      =
| image_upright    =
| image_alt        =
| image_caption    =
| image2           =
| image2_width     =
| image2_upright   =
| image2_alt       =
| image2_caption   =
| status           =
| status_system    =
| status_ref       =
| status2          =
| status2_system   =
| status2_ref      =
| extinct          =
| classification status =
| greatgrandparent_authority =
| grandparent_authority      =
| parent_authority           =
| display_parents            =
| genus                      = Abisara
| subgenus                   =
| species                    = geza
| subdivision_ranks          =
| subdivision                =
| range_map                  =
| range_map_width            =
| range_map_upright          =
| range_map_alt              =
| range_map_caption          =
| range_map2                 =
| range_map2_width           =
| range_map2_upright         =
| range_map2_alt             =
| range_map2_caption         =
| synonyms                   =
| synonyms_ref               =
}}

Hayate891 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hayate891: This error is coming from the line: | species = {{#if:{{{extinct|}}}|†|{{Taxon info|{{{parent|{{{genus|{{first word|{{{taxon|<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly><noinclude>Acacia</noinclude>}}}}}}}}}}}|dagger}} }}<!--. I'm not sure what this line is trying to do, as "daggar" isn't a valid option for the second parameter of {{Taxon info}}, but I at least fixed the case where it produces an error if |taxon= and |parent= or |genus= are specified but blank. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow thanks :). I understand this a little bit now. --Hayate891 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The code of the autotaxoboxes may still be a bit of a mess; the underlying processing was converted to Lua some time ago, and there are bits left over from the old template language processing that aren't needed now. I'll look into the "dagger" issue.
• If |taxon= or |genus= plus |species= aren't given, the taxobox assumes the page title is the taxon – that's why on a page whose title is the species name, just {{Speciesbox}} will work. Personally I think it was a mistake to allow this degree of automation; it regularly causes errors. However, it does mean that the behaviour of the Speciesbox without these parameters on a page whose title isn't the species name isn't an error.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: actually {{taxon info|TAXON|dagger}} is perfectly correct:

• {{taxon info|Raphus|dagger}} → † (because Raphus is marked as extinct at Template:Taxonomy/Raphus)
• {{taxon info|Felis|dagger}} → (i.e. nothing, because Felis is not marked as extinct at Template:Taxonomy/Felis)

What the template code in question does is say that if |extinct= is non-blank, then output †, otherwise output † if the taxon that is the target of the taxobox is marked as extinct in its taxonomy template. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the same error is appearing in ms wiki and the fix that user Ahecht did to the template didn't work the same way for the same template in ms wiki. It doesn't give the link to Template:Taxonomy/Abisara. The error is not there anymore though. I copy the template above and put it in my ms wiki sandbox ms:Pengguna:Hayate891/Kotak pasir. And this the template ms:Templat:Speciesbox. The result is the same with the one that I had placed in ms wiki technical help page. Sorry, is it actually okay to ask something from other wiki? --Hayate891 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hayate891: debugging the automated taxobox system in the English Wikipedia is very difficult anyway, because it is complex and because of the continual switch in processing between the templates and Module:Autotaxobox. Debugging once some of the templates have been localized in a language of which I know only a few tourist words is basically impossible. Sorry. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. --Hayate891 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unranked taxa

Currently, the taxobox at Naegleria fowleri goes up to Phylum, has an unranked group, then includes the domain. If I try to use the speciesbox template, it stops at the phylum. Is this because the template doesn't handle unranked taxa, or is there something else going on here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:, speciesboxes can handle unranked taxa. The issue in this case lies with the underlying template ({{Taxonomy/Naegleria}}) used to generate the speciesbox. Actually, to be more precise, the direct issue is that {{Taxonomy/Percolozoa}} has Discicristata as its parent, and {{Taxonomy/Discicristata}} has Eukaryota as its parent, skipping Excavata entirely. Excavata could be added into the hierarchy. However, note that "minor ranks" by default only display in the taxoboxes of their immediate children ("minor ranks" are sub/super/infra ranks as well as unranked groups and clades). For minor ranks to display far down the hierarchy, their taxonomy templates must be set to "always_display=true".

The broader problem is that for non-animal/plant/fungi eukaryotes, the higher level classification is not particularly stable (see Cavalier-Smith's system of classification), and very few people apart from Cavalier-Smith himself have a good understanding of what the classification should look like (and certain aspects of Cavalier-Smith's classification are not well accepted by the taxonomic community). Plantdrew (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually try to make a purpose of avoiding taxonomy in groups like this one because of how unstable they tend to be, so that definitely makes sense. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Leading &nbsp; for all _ref parameters?

x-posted this @ Template talk:Taxobox#Leading &nbsp; for all _ref parameters?.

I've noticed varying degrees of in/consistency of having or excluding a leading   for the 3 |*_ref= parameters. Do we want to:

1. force a leading nbsp,
2. remove them for all 3 |*_ref=, or
3. just try to maintain a consistent style (all/none) on each page?

The current documentation suggests #2.

If #1 is desired, I can rig the template so it forces 1 nbsp, without duplicating an existing one.

Since I'm going through all the {{IUCN}} transclusions, I'd like to know which format to standardize to.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Chromosome count parameter?

I think that it would be a good idea to include a parameter for how many chromosomes the organism has. There can be different parameters for different sex-determination mechanisms if the community wants. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 18:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

sounds interesting, but is there an easy way to find that out? Like a database or webpage that has it? Nessie (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a database for plant chromosome numbers ([1]). However, I'm not in favor of adding chromosome number to taxoboxes. Chromosome number is already handled by the (little used) {{Infobox genome}}. Plantdrew (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm also against adding yet more information to taxoboxes; they are already over-long in many cases (particularly when many synonyms are included). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to add CITES data to the species box

I was thinking it might be useful to add CITES Appendix data to the species box on organism pages, perhaps in the same style or spirit as the IUCN status. I am aware that not all organisms are managed by CITES, and that this information is available in some articles, but the section where editors put this information seems to vary greatly.

I feel it would be useful “at a glance” info that could be implemented for new organism pages going forward, and for current organism pages by editors who notice the CITES information is missing. VigilanteSilver (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that the IUCN status (and that of similar organizations) is added, I can see the case for this. On the other hand, I feel that taxoboxes are already often too long with too much taxonomic information. I wonder about having a separate "Conservation box". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@VigilanteSilver: CITES status is already supported by speciesbox. It's just not incorporated into very many articles (lemurs are the one group where CITES status is widely given; see e.g. Gray mouse lemur). Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

so @Plantdrew: would we just for example use

|status_system=CITES
|status=III

for the ones on the List of species protected by CITES Appendix III? Is this in a doc somewhere? Nessie (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@NessieVL:, it's documented at Wikipedia:Conservation_status#CITES. However, Appendix III is not supported; I guess the rationale is that Appendix III is nation-by-nation thing. Conservation status in taxoboxes should be global (while taxobox does support some national statuses, these should be applied to endemics, where the national status is also effectively global). And you'll probably want to use |status2= |status2_system= and |status2_ref= for many CITES species as they may already have an IUCN assessment in |status=. I'm not enthusiastic about adding CITES status down to all species where CITES lists a higher taxon. While orchids are universally included in Appendix II, there are many orchid species that aren't remotely threatened; I think it'd be a little misleading to show CITES status for a common orchid species. Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I see all these points. I guess my justification for adding it is that it is an international governing trade body; as with IUCN a user should be able to click on the “CITES” staid and be referred to the article about what that “means.” I think it’s unnecessarily cumbersome to find this information, say, in a list of Appendix I species, even if it was narrowed down by mammals, plants, etc. VigilanteSilver(talk) 02:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

In Spotted tanager, this template calls the DAB page Tangara when it should call Tangara (genus). Could someone who knows their way around the template fix this problem please? Narky Blert (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:, there was a link to the dab page in the article body (now fixed), but nothing I could see in the Speciesbox. I do realize it's not obvious how to fix dab links in Speciesboxes; for the record, clicking on the red pencil icon to the right of "Scientific classification" gets you to the underlying template. Plantdrew (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Automatic italicization disabled by name parameter

Automatic italicization doesn't work in Quercus velutina if the parameter |name=Black oak is present. It does when I remove the parameter, though. Is there logic behind this or is it a bug? I would have thought that the template should italicize the page title if it is equal to the binomial name, without regard for whatever's on top of the taxobox. — Eru·tuon 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There are known issues in the automatic italicization of article titles via taxoboxes. The number of cases to be considered is considerable (e.g. {{Speciesbox}} can be used on a genus page at the English name for a monotypic taxon). It's on a to-do list, but the effort-benefit ratio is high! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Aha, it turns out italicization wasn't working because the taxon name was supplied in |binomial=, but |taxon= is what {{speciesbox}} looks at when automatically italicizing. I've adjusted my script to change |binomial= to |taxon= when switching from {{taxobox}} to {{speciesbox}}. — Eru·tuon 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The binomial name in the taxobox is derived from the pagename if |taxon=, |genus=, and |species= are absent (yielding weird results on pages like Jack pine). The automatic italicization logic in {{speciesbox/name}} only receives |taxon=, |genus=, and |species=. That's why the title of Quercus velutina wasn't being automatically italicized when |binomial= was used in place of |taxon=: all three of those parameters were absent. It would have been italicized if the pagename-derived binomial name were supplied to {{speciesbox/name}}. — Eru·tuon 20:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I may be oversimplifying the logic because Liatris chapmanii is italicized, even though it has no |taxon=. [Edit: Oh yeah, italicization is disabled when |name= is present but |taxon=, |genus=, and |species= aren't.] — Eru·tuon 21:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Handling audio files

Wikimedia UK are working with the Natural History Museum to release some audio files of animals and we're part-way through the upload to Commons. While audio files can be free-standing in an article like images, would it be possible to add a field to the speciesbox to include an audio file? As a follow up, would it be possible to pull this information in from Wikidata so that it could be automated? I'm looking at a way to match the audio files to Wikidata items, and if they could then be pulled through to this template where appropriate that would speed things up a lot. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And could the same be done for Template:Taxobox? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell (WMUK):, some speciesboxes/taxoboxes already include audio files, using the |image2= parameter. See, for example, Brown-hooded kingfisher and Bohemian waxwing. That might not be the best way to do things, since audio files aren't images and a value specified in |image2= may represent either an audio file or an image (making it difficult to quickly check which articles have audio files). If a dedicated parameter for audio files were introduced, existing articles with audio files in |image2= would need to be updated. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Checking |image2= could probably be done by bot which would lessen the amount of work involved (says the person who doesn't know how to script). Do you know where might be the place to establish consensus for making an audio specific field and including an option for it to be populated from Wikidata? Pinging @RexxS: as someone who is knowledgeable about templates and might have some thoughts on the matter. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I am strongly against adding audio files to taxoboxes. Taxoboxes are infoboxes, and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE applies. The purpose of a taxobox is to summarize taxonomic information, and "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". It should never be automatically filled from Wikidata or any other outside database, which may not be using the same taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Follow that logic to its conclusion and images, fossil range, conservation status and range maps wouldn't be in taxoboxes either (and maybe they shouldn't be). @Richard Nevell (WMUK):; another way to incorporate audio files is via {{Listen}} as at Eurasian tree sparrow, or they can be embedded directly as at Common starling#Voice. Featured articles on birds are not at all consistent in how they present audio files of bird calls. Maybe there should be something like {{Mycomorphbox}} for birds that could include field marks and audio files. Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell (WMUK): If you have a look at {{Infobox person}}, possibly the most used infobox on Wikipedia, you'll find that there are six |module= parameters available that are often used to embed audio files via the {{listen}} template. Andy has been driving a project for some time to get famous people to say a few words, often including their name, and there are lots of examples to check out, e.g. a quite lengthy sound-bite at Benedict Cumberbatch. It seems to me that audio such as characteristic bird-calls are perfectly suited to be included in an infobox, but you may have to get consensus to add a module parameter to Template:Taxobox/core, which is where it would need to be implemented. Personally, I find it most strange that we don't have a sample of cuckoo song in the infobox of Cuckoo. On the plus side, having a module available in Template:Taxobox/core would make it available to {{Automatic taxobox}}, {{Ichnobox}}, {{Oobox}}, {{Speciesbox}}, {{Hybridbox}}, {{Subspeciesbox}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}}. Perhaps you need to start a discussion at Template talk:Taxobox to get more opinions. I'm happy help out with any technical queries if needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the format of the 'listen' template. My line of thinking is that if audio files are added to Wikidata items it would be possible to them make it easy to reuse them in a range of languages. The files include sounds from insects, amphibians, and mammals, as well as birds so it might be easier to change overall infoboxes, such as this one, but that does of course require consensus. Thank you Plantdrew and Peter for your thoughts, I think I'll probably leave a message on Template talk:Taxobox and invite interested WikiProjects to the discussion. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Richard: I think you'll find it easier if you separate the concept of adding an audio file from that of drawing information from Wikidata. Each of them requires negotiation, probably with a somewhat different group. At present, it would be a straightforward job to add a |module= parameter to Template:Taxobox/core. Whereas I would need to write a custom call for you to fetch data from Wikidata (which would probably be a link to the audio file on Commons) and pass it to the listen template. So I'd advise you to take this in stages, and let people see the advantage of having animal sounds immediately available from our articles before broaching the issue of the use of Wikidata. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sensible advice. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

INFOBOXPURPOSE allows for the use of audio in infoboxes: "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text" and this is indeed the most sensible place to put such a key facet of a bird. A dedicated parameter would be preferable to using the image field, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

For me the issue is that taxoboxes are specialized forms of infoboxes primarily concerned with taxonomy. So rather than clutter an already often too detailed infobox (particularly when long lists of synonyms are included), I think it would be better to have a separate "bird infobox", as suggested above. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean we should re-purpose {{Infobox bird}} to contain the sounds? As the original poster tells us that "files include sounds from insects, amphibians, and mammals, as well as birds", does that mean you think we should do the same by creating {{Infobox insect}}, {{Infobox amphibian}}, and {{Infobox mammal}}, as well? --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing prevents an audio file being added to an article in the same way as an image. If (and in my view only if) many articles on a particular group are likely to contain audio files, then a special infobox could be useful to readers, since they could then learn to expect the audio to be there. Otherwise, why use an infobox? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If someone is going to add an audio file to a template, they should at least have the grace to do it properly. Adding a module parameter to Template:Taxobox/core would at least circumvent the nonsense of editors misusing |image2= in the parent templates. We use an infobox for multiple reasons, not least of which is that readers have come to expect an at-a-glance summary of key items of information about the topic in a box in the top-right corner. It's beyond my comprehension why anybody would argue that it's not a good use of the infobox at the top of Lark to let readers hear lark-song; even though they can access a Nightingale's song from the infobox in that article. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that it's beyond my comprehension why anyone would want to cram yet more information into a taxobox, intended primarily to summarize taxonomy – especially as it wouldn't be uniform across organisms. It's not helpful to readers to keep increasing the size of the taxobox, as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE makes clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And yet, it's patently obvious from the fact that editors do add extra information that there's a demand for it. Perhaps you're making a mistake in thinking that the purpose of an infobox is to summarise taxonomy, whereas the purpose is actually to present key information relating to the subject, as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE makes clear. You're entitled to think that the average reader is more interested in knowing that a Lark belongs to the kingdom of animalia; but my opinion is that many more people would be interested in learning what lark-song sounds like. One line of text is all that's needed to embed an audio file, and you call that "cram[ing] yet more information". Really? Will you be suggesting getting rid the image next as that surely isn't taxonomic information? --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've never disputed the case for an infobox for birds, or any other taxonomic group for which there is a demand, and which can have a consistent format for all members of the group so that readers can learn what to expect. Clearly a "bird infobox" should contain audio in most cases. We will just have to differ on whether putting audio into the taxobox (i.e. the "taxonomy infobox") is sensible, given that it won't apply to the overwhelming majority of organisms, which either don't make sounds (plants, fungi, bacteria, most invertebrates, etc.) or don't make sounds of any relevance. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So you'd be happy to have two infoboxes like {{Speciesbox}} and {{Infobox bird}} at the top-right of the same article? It does rather beg the question of how that benefits the reader more than having a single infobox that presents all the key information relating to the subject, as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE prescribes. As for other organisms, I think you'll find that no editor is going to make the mistake of trying to add an audio file to the infobox for Earthworm or Mushroom --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that editors would incorrectly add an audio file where it wasn't appropriate. My point is that infoboxes work best when they mostly have the same fields for all the articles in which they are appropriate, since then readers can learn what to expect. It's why we have specialized infoboxes, e.g. {{Infobox scientist}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, etc., rather than just {{Infobox person}}. See Amanita muscaria for an example of a specialized infobox for fungi. Would you put all the information in {{Mycomorphbox}} in the taxobox? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that infoboxes work any better when they always have the same fields filled in across all (or even most) the articles where they are used. On the contrary, allowing editors to pick which fields are the most suitable on an article-by-article basis is vital to ensure that editorial discretion determines content, not some prearranged formula that is bound to satisfy nobody. Readers don't need to be trained like Pavlov's dogs, and spending any time at all on the talk pages of the most popular infoboxes will quickly show the variety of parameters requested. As for Amanita muscaria, yes, of course I'd transclude the second infobox as a child (embedded template) in a heartbeat. Not only would it save the space wasted by needless repetition of the title, it would present an infobox of uniform width (why does one box have a width set to 200px and the other to 22em?), and it might mean somebody took an interest in cleaning up Template:Mycomorphbox. None of the icons have alt text, which might be acceptable if they are considered purely decorative, but we should never be suppressing the link because images like File:Gills icon.png are copyright, released under CC-BY-SA which requires attribution via a link. Only PD images can have the link suppressed. That's what happens when you get a proliferation of "specialised" templates that hardly ever get maintained.--RexxS (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is clearly one of those matters on which we must agree to disagree. Allowing editors to choose which taxonomy or which taxonomic items are included in a taxobox would utterly defeat one of its main purposes, which is to allow the presentation of a consistent taxonomy for a group and navigation among the levels of that taxonomy. Nor do I see why putting a specialized module within an taxobox makes it any more likely to be properly looked after, since it only would be used by precisely the same set of editors. Maintaining existing taxoboxes is difficult enough (Plantdrew does sterling work, but few other editors are likely to emulate his workload). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just been reminded of this discussion, as I am about to add an audio file to an article about a species of insect that uses this template, and needed to remind myself of the facilities available to do so. It is lamentable that we cannot use this template to contain the audio, in a dedicated parameter in exactly the same way that we can with an image. Especially as there only seems to be one editor opposing this. Instead, we must have the jarring step at Chaperina fusca - compare that with the neat presentation at, for example, bg:Chaperina fusca. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Extinct dagger in binomial box

When {{Speciesbox}} is used to create a taxobox, if the species is extinct, the † sign currently appears only in the species row, and not in the corresponding "binomial box".

When this was discussed in May 2016, there was agreement to put the † in both places. (@Casliber, Faendalimas, Plantdrew, and Dinoguy2: you agreed then.) However, the discussion petered out with no action taken – I think because there was a desire to eliminate the binomial box altogether, but no agreement on how to do it.

Should we now implement this decision? As of now, Template:Speciesbox/testcases#Extinct genus and species shows how the sandbox version of {{Speciesbox}} would work. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I like the dagger in the binomial box. Was the monospecific example supposed to be extinct? Nessie (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's one of two pages of of test cases, of which a few relate to extinct species. (Actually the monospecific test case doesn't really work because it only shows the genus in bold if actually on a page with this title.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess I didn't feel so strongly about it. I am actually open minded to the other way as I wonder if it is overkill, but on balance (slightly) prefer this way. Good luck with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Having the dagger in both places makes sense to me. I wonder if it would lead anyone to think it's an part of the binomial, though, like the multiplication sign for hybrid taxa. Another thought, how about adding a tooltip describing what the dagger means? — Eru·tuon 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We have discussed wikilinking and/or providing a tooltip before, but the problem has been the undesirability of the repetition involved when multiple rows of taxa in the taxobox have daggers. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not too fussed either way. However, I would say that if it is desirable to identify extinct species then this should be consistent. Hence, if this means multiple uses of it in one page so be it. I would suggest though that if you did a tooltip on the symbol, maybe this version only be used once per page. Personally I do think it useful to identify extinct taxa, particularly since many of them are unfamiliar to the general reader hence it at a glance provides this piece of information. On keeping the binomial box, I can see reasons for getting rid of it and for keeping it. The main ones for keeping it is it is a searchable term, it also shows the correct way for writing the species binomial name. Main reason for dropping it is its somewhat repetitive. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: I guess it's because there are arguments for and against the binomial box that the status quo prevails; we might or might not now introduce it, but there isn't a strong argument to change thousands of taxoboxes by getting rid of it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If that dagger/grave marker/footnote/odd-looking-t symbol is to be used, what prevents the use of the word 'extinct' appearing next to it at the first instance? And if it only used once, why not replace it with that word? In fact, why not just … — cygnis insignis 14:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Replacing it at first use is tricky, because the rows in a taxobox are produced independently (and can be changed by changing |always_display= in the taxonomy template, independently of the taxobox). (I will look into providing a tool tip or wikilink at first use only.) I personally think that putting "extinct" or "(extinct)" after – presumably not before – every extinct taxon in a taxobox would be very clumsy. † seems well established as a symbol for "extinct". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Make the symbol read as both extinct and a footnote, with text explaining what the usage is via the ref system and using a substitution of the dagger for the numeral. This gives a hover text in most systems and—as a bonus—satisfies the concern raised above, that it is not part of the statement at the row 'rank = concept'. And unless I am missing something, we could add a note that all the subsequent ranks are therefore extinct. — cygnis insignis 17:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I noted its use elsewhere for extinct, but just did a double take when checking something at HBW. Their use of a Ϯ Symbols, standard abbreviations, and short glossary may be conflicting with the application of ‡ for "extinct genus". This is all merely interesting at the moment, I'm not going to lose any more sleep about. — cygnis insignis 13:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Could modifying the Template:Extinct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template help with the link/tooltip business? --Nessie (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Links to a DAB page

In Milicia excelsa and Milicia regia, this template calls the DAB page Milicia rather than the genus Milicia (plant). Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. (The problem was in Template:Taxonomy/Milicia, not this template.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Transclusions of Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox

@Peter coxhead: The updated version of this template uses /sandbox. Christian75 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Christian75: it's Template:Taxobox/taxonomy that is still to some extent under test, so it's useful to be able to drive Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/sandbox from a version of Template:Taxobox/core. But the note here will remind me to remove the "/sandbox" when I'm sure it's all ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to mention it, because I saw a lot of transclusions to the sandbox page. Christian75 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Christian75: actually, you were right in that there are far too many transclusions of Template:Taxobox/core/sandbox; so far they all disappear with a null edit. I think I must have made a sequence error in updating a hierarchy of template calls, so that inadvertently one of the live versions used a sandbox version. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

BARCODE OF LIFE DATA SYSTEM

Has there been any consideration for adding the bar code of life info into the species box? - unsigned comment by User:Jtamad 03:07, 14 May 2019

This is not the sort of information that gets added to any of the taxoboxes (e.g. {{speciesbox}}). Identifiers such as the barcode of life are added in the {{taxonbar}}, which gets the idenfier numbers from Wikidata. There is an wikidata item for barcode of life (Q27860883) with an ID property (P3606) that could be added to the taxonbar. I'm unfamiliar with the Barcode of life so have no opinion on whether it should be added, but this is a question to ask at {{taxonbar}}. It's not new, so may have come up before. @Tom.Reding: Any thoughts?   Jts1882 | talk  06:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jtamad and Jts1882: BOLD Systems taxon ID (P3606) can and is automatically retrieved from Wikidata via {{Taxonbar}}. I agree with Jts that it is best to keep this authority-esque info out of the infobox and at the bottom of the page, as is the WP standard. If you're talking about referencing certain info from BOLD, similar to, say, how IUCN status can appear in the infobox as well as the authority link in {{Taxonbar}}, then that is a different story, and we need more detail.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Slight problem

Anyone know why the family isn't bolded and delinked in the following monotypic species? It just redirects to itself but should be just bold and unclickable. Gymnorhadinorhynchus Mattximus (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. In a taxonomy template, in this case Template:Taxonomy/Gymnorhadinorhynchidae, when the link is a redirect, then both the actual link and the link text must be given to make the automatic bolding work. The Wikimedia software isn't clever enough to embolden a redirected link back to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping fix that. I have tried what you said here: Sauracanthorhynchus but I still get an error. I will learn how this system works yet...! Thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to have corrected itself...! Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: one point to note is that you may need to make a null edit (i.e. open an article for editing and save without making a change) to force a change in a taxonomy template to show up in the article. Edits to templates often don't immediately affect articles using them, and take time to propagate down. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

image caption parameters

|caption= can be used without causing an error, but does not display the caption. |image_caption= and |image2_caption= are documented, so it looks like caption was intended to be replaced. Example. Frietjes? MB 02:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@MB: there is also |range_map_caption=. However, the issue is that one can add additional parameters and they won't cause a problem. One could add |pickle_caption= or |contraption= and no error would pop up because templates typically do not care about additional parameters. However, I have seen some templates that will display error messages if any parameters are used that are not on a whitelist. I'm not sure how that works, but it theoretically could happen. Another question is how many taxoboxes are using |caption=, but i'm too tired rn to figure out the regex for that. --Nessie (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Logically |caption= in a taxobox would add the caption to the whole table and that is determined automatically or set explicitly by |name=. Otherwise a caption should specify what image it refers to, the two images at the top or the range maps. Parameters handled by the module functions tend to add categories or give errors during editing (e.g. missing taxonomy templates) rather than throw errors on the page, which seems sensible handling (cf. citation templates). The extraneous parameters just don't get passed to {{taxobox/core}}. The use of these parameters also get reported in the monthly templatedata error reports (showing 5 uses of |caption= in {{speciesbox}} on Sept 1st)and get cleaned up (mainly by Plantdrew).   Jts1882 | talk  06:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Jts1882 that logically |caption= would be an alias of |name= not of |image_caption=. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edited) Every month there are a few instances of |caption= in the templatedata error reports, which I quickly fix. |caption= is accepted in some other templates that appear in taxon articles (e.g. {{Nutritional value}}), and I don't know of a way to restrict a search to only find instances of |caption= in taxoboxes. I try to search for frequently appearing bad parameters every two weeks (including right before the error report is generated), but with |caption= I rely on the monthly report.

The error reports do not show parameters with no values specified. I would guess there are more than 100 different bogus parameters with no specified values across all taxoboxes (most of which would appear in a single article), but there's no way to search for them without knowing what they are. I'll check now to remove |caption= with unspecified values from taxoboxes, but with the number of false positives from other templates legitimately using |caption=, it's not something I'm going to revisit on a frequent basis. Plantdrew (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Template now handles nothogenera

I have updated the template to a version that handles species within nothogenera; see, for example, × Astrolista bicarinata. If you notice any problems this has created, please revert the latest change to {{Speciesbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

disambiguation of genus

In the three articles on species of Sanmai (genus) (all listed in that article), the taxoboxes link to the dab page Sanmai. Can someone with more knowledge of this area fix this. MB 16:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done

@MB: The key to the these problems is the |link= line in the taxonomy template. So at {{Taxonomy/Sanmai}} I replaced |link=Sanmai with |link=Sanmai (genus)|Sanmai to redirect the link. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)