Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

Link to NCBI Taxonomy browser

Should a parameter be added to allow for linking to the NCBI Taxonomy browser. For example: 39916, Silene stenophylla?Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Seems just like the |omim= in {{Infobox disease}}. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
We already have {{NCBI}} and {{TaxonIds}} that allow linking pages to NCBI. I just added these to Silene stenophylla. TaxonIds was created for this purpose to avoid cluttering the taxobox with external database identifiers. Ganeshk (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Whereas external identifiers are useful for some things, such as chemical databases, NCBI taxonomy browser is not great at keeping up with all classifications among all organisms, so it would be unwise to encourage inclusion of such an external identifier in an infobox. It's ok for external links, though, because it doesn't take a place of authority as it would if it were in the infobox. Rkitko (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Got it. I didn't realize NCBI was behind the curve. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Should there really be a separate inofbox for identifiers? Perhaps it could be nested in a collapsible box in the existing taxobox? This sort of data should centralized...it makes it easier to parse.Smallman12q (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole purpose of {{TaxonIds}} is to centralise the identifiers; they would be no more centralised in the taxobox than they currently are. The downside to putting them in the taxobox is that they're quite obtrusive – certainly not the kind of critical information that should be highlighted in the primary infobox. If you're going to collapse them, you might as well hide them entirely, leaving them readable only by robots, but then why deny the reader the ability to click through to NCBI, EoL or WoRMS? I think the current solution is quite a good one, although there are a few ways I would like to make it more flexible in terms of layout; on more than one occasion, I have wanted to make it align left, rather than right, and haven't been able to work out a way of doing so. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Strains

Hi,

There is a "type-strain" section in taxobox, but no "strains" section. Could it be possible to add one? I have done a prototype in the Cunninghamella elegans taxobox using HTML tags. Does that have any interest? Thanks --NotWith (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the reason a strains section was omitted is that they usually don't offer much information. There are millions of minor strains not worth mentioning, so it's hard to see strains as a subdivision worth describing in the taxobox, especially when a new strain can be created by simple transformation with a plasmid or phage transduction of a null allele to knock out a target gene. These fit the ICNB's definition of a strain, but the taxonomic idea is, well, strained, if you'll excuse the pun. Could you see describing these strains in the text? If not, then they shouldn't be there. Even if they are discussed, it might be overwhelming on some articles (think of E. coli, K-12, W3110, MC4100, many of the O157: strains are worthy of mention, but should that huge list of strains go in the taxobox?)... Just my thoughts on the matter. Rkitko (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Use the "subdivision" parameter, of course, just like you would for any other type of taxon subdivision. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 05:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Caption - allows credit to artist, what about photographer?

The discussion of images states:

A caption can be provided using image_caption. A caption need not be provided if it would just repeat the title of the article. It should be provided if it can convey any additional information about the image, such as the sex or life stage of the individual, the location where the picture was taken, the artist (if an engraving or other illustration), or (for higher taxa) the particular species depicted.

I'm in correspondence with a photographer whose image is being used. The licensing claim was {{PD-USGov}} but that was incorrect, and we are in danger of having to remove the image. The author is mulling allowing the image, but would like some form of credit. I understand that we do not normally provide image credits, but I see that it is allowed in the case of an artist; is there a reason why we would be willing to credit an artist but not a photographer? If I were to add a photo credit to a caption, what is likely to happen?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We're always happy to credit the photographer... but on the image page, not where the image is used. Hesperian 23:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

List of moths

I've written around 300 articles on moths and butterflies, out of a list of over a thousand, all with English, Latin and Welsh names. Please take a look here. I'm now looking for a database of three fields: the Latin name (only those on my list!), habitat and wingspan.

There are very few of us on the Wiki-cy we need all the help we can get, please. An excel file would be great, then I could get a bot to add one or two sentences onto the pages e.g. habitat, wingspan.

Let's conserve that rich diversity of life: including languages! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is IUCN status suppose to be what IUCN say or other sources?

A discussion is currently happening here about whether the IUCN status is suppose to be what IUCN say or other sources says. You may like to discuss or once finished amend the taxobox documentation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

longevity or life expectancy parameter

Hi,

I suggest to add a longevity or life expectancy parameter. I think it is not already the case and it applies for all the living things. It would format the information in the articles and allow new automatic searches Ftiercel (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The intention of the taxobox is to provide taxonomic information for articles – to show what taxon is meant, and how it fits into the tree of life. There are any number of biological attributes that could be added to an infobox, but that would be likely to swamp the article. I can't see any obvious reason why longevity should be singled out for inclusion. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservation status: "Under Review"

I would like to request adding the conservation status of 'Under Review' to the Taxobox template (possibly with "UR" as the code?) The Platte River caddisfly (for which I am currently creating an article) currently falls under this status - see http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0V7

I am honestly not sure where to go with this concern, as Wikipedia:Conservation status is archaic, and I'm not sure if this is exactly a matter for the Village Pump.

The status of "NE" (Not Evaluated) is just plain incorrect in this instance... there was just a 12-month assessment to determine whether this caddisfly was Endangered, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ultimately determined it is not.

If there is a place better suited for this inquiry, please let me know and I will direct it there. Thank you.

--CrunchySkies (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello CrunchySkies. This is the right place, but I'm afraid you need to have already written the template code before you request an edit. The admins aren't free coders for hire (unless you ask extremely nicely ;). I recommend asking Smith609, as he is active and he seems to know the template well. If you have no luck with him, try asking on WT:TOL or WT:WPT to see if there is anyone who can help. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix Template:Taxobox/taxonomy and Taxobox/taxonomy/3 for depth

The 4 major subtemplates of {Taxobox/core} which show the taxon rows in the infobox, as Template:Taxobox/taxonomy thru Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/3, need to be fixed, from the /sandbox versions, to not exceed the "wp:Expansion depth limit" of 41 levels. {Taxobox/taxonomy/3} should be changed to show only 19 levels of taxons, and {Taxobox/taxonomy} should be changed for when to invoke {Taxobox/taxonomy/1}, which can then use the deeper subtemplates "/2" and "/3" to nest {Taxobox/taxonomy/2} and then nest {Taxobox/taxonomy/3}. By changing those 4 subtemplates (copied from the /sandbox versions), then over 2,000 genus/species articles should format properly and no longer appear linked to:

The current exceeded-depth messages are mostly non-fatal in genus/species articles, so the main reason for the fix is to unclutter that depth-category, so that other articles with truly severe exceeded-limit problems can be spotted without the 2,000 bio/species articles cluttering the category.
Testing: After the update, then editing of bio/species articles, such as whale "Aegyptocetus" or tree "Acacia" should be able to run "Show preview" with no red message "Page exceeded the expansion depth" appearing at top during edit-preview. Also, several minutes after the change, the count by {PAGESINCATEGORY}, of about 4,600 pages (live: 186) should be much lower than 3,000 pages.
Impact: About 7,360 articles should be affected, including every article which uses Template:Taxobox/taxonomy called by {Taxobox/core} from {Speciesbox} or {Automatic taxobox}. The exceeded-depth problem has existed for many months/years. Recently (29 August 2012), we changed {Template:Infobox_German location} to avoid the depth-limit in over 11,000 articles. I have studied this Taxobox issue thoroughly, and notified template author User:Smith609, so ask any questions below, thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:28, 1 Sep., revised 07:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure, but your recent edits (commenting) to these templates are breaking these templates. I had to rollback your last edit to Speciesbox here since it was breaking the template. It would be best to wait until Smith609 looks at these changes before you make any more edits. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am still thinking of better methods to reduce the expansion depth, so I will wait longer on requesting changes, until others can comment about the issues. -Wikid77 20:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating Taxobox in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu (ms.wikipedia.org)

Hi. I'm new here. I want to update taxobox scripts in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu(WBM) but I don't know where to start. The scripts here are complicated and I have messed up the script in WBM. The copy and paste method doesn't work well as the scripts here use a lot of new templates that are not still made in WBM. For that, I willing to learn it one by one so that I can update it in WBM. Can anyone help me for that? Izhamwong (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Temporal Range suggestion

I have made a suggestion on the Automatic taxobox talkpage for updating the temporal range. Comments and suggestions are welcome! --Kevmin § 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Code revision note

After noticing that |status system= and |status_system= respond differently, I've updated the code such that any parameter may be entered with a whitespace in the name instead of an underscore without adverse effects. This affected over 100 parameters (estimated), so please post any bug reports you believe are related to this update. Anticipated potential bugs to watch for may include: trailing braces { or }, redlinked templates, spacing oddities, and parameters that do not display at all or appear doubled. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 20:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that's a good idea. From what I understand, template parameter aliases have a substantial performance cost. And I'd argue they make for less elegant, less maintainable code regardless of performance. Ucucha (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
My biggest reasoning here is because {{automatic taxobox}} has allowed this since its inception, and for awhile even didn't allow parameters with underscores, which really screwed with the minds of those of us who were working with it daily. This is for consistency. And for the record, there's nothing elegant about the parameter inputs for {{taxobox}}, or any part of it, for that matter. It's such a bulky piece of code that it takes forever for anyone to make a decent revision. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That's no excuse to make things worse. Though I suppose "elegance" is inherently incompatible with MediaWiki templates.
Compatibility with the automatic taxobox is good, but we should avoid bringing bad design from that template over to this one. Ucucha (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fields for multimedia?

We currently have the image and image2 fields (along with their widths and captions), and technically, these can be used to add sounds or videos (example at Aegithalidae), but wouldn't it be better to have something like audio and audio2 and video and video2 too? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears to work perfectly fine and simple now; the only problem that I can see is that you have to put audio or video in a field called "image". If that is an issue, we can rename it "media". Ucucha (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
This proposal sounds like a great idea, so long as all the concerns can be addressed. To add one more 'unusual case', it would be important to handle ambiguous taxonomic designations (for example see the class-level 'question mark' at Nectocaris). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:50, 24 June 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
Callosciurus prevostii Tamias sibiricus Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Sciurus niger Spermophilus columbianus Xerus inauris Cynomys ludovicianusSciuridae.jpg
About this image
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:
USA Mass Cape Cod location map.svg + USA Mass Cape Cod Provincetown overlay.svg  → and the resulting Infobox (on the right) has a familiar signature!
Provincetown, Massachusetts
Nickname(s): "P-town" or "P'town"
Motto: "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)