Template talk:Taxobox colour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Colour changes[edit]

After much discussion it has been agreed that changes need to be made to the colour scheme of taxoboxes. Your comments on this matter are welcomed here; the proposed new template can be viewed here.


Verisimilus T 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the source code of this template with the source of Template:Taxobox colour/Update (which can be deleted after this request is fulfilled). Many thanks! Verisimilus T 11:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. In a day or two, tag the other page with {{db-g7}} and it will be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I put in the wrong hex code by the Excavates. I've also streamlined the code. Could you please replace the source code of this page with that of Template:Taxobox colour/Update? Thanks, and sorry to be a pain! Verisimilus T 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

update request[edit]

{{editprotected}} this edit seams to give some funny character ;"| on e.g. the shark page. It should be fixed, not sure exactely which to change though :-) --Stefan talk 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was fixed with this edit. The available regnum are in Template:Taxobox colour scheme. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, to tricky for me to figure out :-) --Stefan talk 09:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fix for garbled title characters (;"|)[edit]

{{editprotected}} In Template:Taxobox_colour, the final line of the switch-coding (stating "transparent") causes the bizarre semicolon-quotemark combination. It could be replaced as just white-color (FCFCFC), followed by the category and another quotemark, as follows:

|FCFCFC"[[Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color]]"}}

Although the invalid-color category might seem excessive, it has helped to detect animal articles that were vandalized to specify an incorrect "regnum" value. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, fixed up, but there must be a span parameter that's recognised as text? Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
After this fix there was even more extraneous text (' style="background:#FCFCFC"";"| ') in the header, so I reverted. Can you create a test template that shows the desired effects? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, I have created a next-generation template (see below). -Wikid77, 31Aug09

Replacing as next-generation template[edit]

31-Aug-09: {{editprotect}} I have re-designed it under User:Wikid77/Template:Taxobox_colour as a tested-template, which will insert a new "style=" after putting the category-name link. Based on template designs of 4 years, I've designed the newer template to also allow a non-wikilinked regnum (such as kingdom "Animalia" or "Plantae" w/o brackets) and other link forms (such as "[[Animal|Animalia]]" or "[[Plant|Plantae]]").

The plan is to replace the current template using the exact coding of the tested-template. No internal adjustments are needed, because the template's categories come from the doc subpage.

For final test, view Template_talk:Taxobox topic "Broken". -Wikid77 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Tired that generates

incertae sedis
incertae sedis
style="background:#FCFCFC;" style="font-color:black"| Monkey

on the test cases page. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Garish green[edit]

This is quite trivial but given the nice muted beige colour for animals, the greenyellow colour for plants now seems rather vivid (/ garish). Would anyone object if I were to mute it a little, whilst retaining (or perhaps increasing) the distinction from the archaeoplastid's lightgreen? I was thinking something along the lines of #adee3f. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Currently, eggshells (indicated in the box below by the word "Ootaxa") haven't got their own color. Whatever color is chosen will be used exclusively in all {{oobox}}es. I have exceptional color vision and can detect contrast a lot easier than someone who might have color vision problems, so I'd prefer some input from others. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 22:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Animalia rgb(235,235,210)
Archaeplastida rgb(180,250,180)
Fungi rgb(145,250,250)
Chromalveolata rgb(200,250,80)
Choanozoa rgb(238,235,195)
Rhizaria rgb(240,230,240)
Excavata rgb(250,250,100)
Amoebozoa rgb(170,250,205)
Bacteria rgb(220,235,245)
Archaea rgb(195,245,250)
Viruses rgb(250,250,190)
incertae sedis rgb(250,240,230)
Colours not produced by this template:
Ichnotaxa rgb(215,240,210)
Ootaxa rgb(250,250,220)
How about a reddish color? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Like this? Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah...like that! Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
But is it too close to the color for Archaea? Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe...perhaps #FF4040 in CSS? (Sorry for using the Wikia colors, but it's listed as brown1 on this chart) Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I fixed your suggestion to display the color you suggested. It's a little uncomfortable for reading since it's so dark. Maybe we should try a completely different shade. I'm thinking of exploring the indigos now... Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this color too close to the Bacteria Rhizaria one? I think the already existing ones have already over-exhausted the possibilies...Rhizaria is so close to Bacteria, Archaea, and incertae sedis that I can hardly tell a difference... Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 23:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
How about something like this? Sort of a medium-saturation cyan. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks too close to Fungi on my screen....As much as I hate to propose it, I think we need to try a darker color. Does Plain text and hyperlink display clearly? Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 15:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That's better. Text + link fine. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to go back to Bob's first proposal; do we really need to worry about confusion between eggshell fossils and Archaea? Besides, the colors aren't that close. Archaea and incertae sedis are almost identical, though, and more likely to be confused. (It seems more likely that the same persons would look up Archaea and incertae sedis [which are probably understudied little eukaryotes] than Archaea and ootaxa.) Ucucha 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Soooo...any word yet? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin transitioning it to pink right now. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 16:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done

In light of the luminosity increase[edit]

"Rhizaria is so close to Bacteria, Archaea, and incertae sedis that I can hardly tell a difference"....And suddenly it all makes sense-- those really bright colors on the taxa I mentioned above were probably all set back in the day when CRTs were used. CRTs naturally aren't anywhere nearly as bright, and therefore display the colors darker. Those are probably all easily distinguishable on a CRT, but on an LCD they're all too light to see due to the increase in luminosity. Or is it just me? I better request the participation of those WikiProjects... (done)

I'm making a motion to darken the colors of Rhizaria, Bacteria, and Archaea. Please comment. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 15:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that many of these colours are likely to be hard-coded in the taxoboxes, using the |colour= parameter (which is still widespread in these smaller taxa). They look easy enough to distinguish on my LCD, and I for one like a high contrast between background and text (the proposed pinkish egg colour above looks too dark for me). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm using Windows 7 (fast-growing in many areas), and many of the colors seem lighter. I personally vote darker. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Allow more non-linked arguments[edit]

Could the internal linking be made optional for some more of the arguments that this templates takes? The specific on I had a problem with was Rhizaria, but I see a few others that still require linking. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Now optional for Rhizaria. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox colors and accessibility[edit]

Due to some recent discussions about MOS:ACCESS and its requirements for WP:COLOR combinations compliant with the WCAG AAA standard for text accessibility, it occurred to me to check the taxobox color scheme. The AAA standard requires a contrast ratio between text and background of at least 7:1, and all but one of the current colors are (slightly) short of that standard relative to the default blue link color (#0645AD). Most do meet the weaker AA standard (4.5:1), but two cases - the colors for viruses and ichnotaxa - fall short of that too.

The table below defines a suggested revised color scheme with AAA-compliant colors. The only one that changes substantially is the viruses, because there's already enough light-pink-ish colors here. Note, these all also meet the AAA standard compared to dark blue/purple 'visited' links (#0B0080). For reference, black text on a white background has a contrast ratio of 21, and the grayscale value with a contrast ratio of 7.0 on a white background is #595959. Thoughts? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Old color New color Old contrast ratio New contrast ratio Old RGB New RGB
Animalia Animalia 5.53 7.19 rgb(211,211,164) rgb(241,241,180)
Archaeplastida Archaeplastida 6.02 7.17 rgb(144,238,144) rgb(172,255,172)
Fungi Fungi 5.58 7.28 rgb(173,216,230) rgb(208,243,253)
Chromalveolata Chromalveolata 6.12 7.51 rgb(173,238,63) rgb(205,255,172)
Rhizaria Rhizaria 5.78 7.09 rgb(225,204,252) rgb(255,225,255)
Excavata Excavata 6.66 7.61 rgb(240,230,140) rgb(255,245,148)
Amoebozoa Amoebozoa 5.69 7.19 rgb(255,200,160) rgb(255,234,184)
Bacteria Bacteria 5.70 7.02 rgb(211,211,211) rgb(233,233,233)
Archaea Archaea 5.98 7.09 rgb(236,210,210) rgb(255,228,228)
Viruses Viruses 3.68 7.63 rgb(238,130,238) rgb(218,251,218)
incertae sedis incertae sedis 7.58 7.58 rgb(250,240,230) rgb(250,240,230)
Colors not produced by this template:
Ichnotaxa Ichnotaxa 3.96 7.11 rgb(221,165,127) rgb(255,231,200)
Ootaxa Ootaxa 5.55 7.20 rgb(255,192,203) rgb(255,230,231)
I'm certainly open to change for accessibility reasons, but it would appear we're limited by the number of taxa and other groups for which we assign colors. Side-by-side like this, I can't see much of a difference between the new Rhizaria and Archaea. The differences between the proposed Archaeplastida/Fungi/Chromalveolata are still noticeable, but this change would make them a bit harder to distinguish. Then again, you'll never see more than one taxobox on an article and so the point of the color was to allow the reader to easily and quickly determine the major group or kingdom the article belongs to. If we're going to change for reasons of accessibility, we might as well try to rethink which colors are used for the different taxa and try to find a set that is more easily distinguishable at the higher ratios. We've made big changes before -- the animal taxa used to be some shade of pink. Rkitko (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oooh, good eye. I admit I don't think much of them aesthetically; with the intensity cranked that high, I find the backgrounds looking washed-out and difficult to distinguish. (See comments above from 2011.) But there's not much we can do, I suppose. Messing with link color would be even more of a usability problem. I'm open to some rearrangement of colors, certainly. Choess (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Contrast between foreground and background is more important than the difference between two of the background colours, since the information the latter conveys is also present in text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. I tried to use minimal changes from the existing scheme, but I agree some of them are too close. The worst offenders to me are archaea and ootaxa, but I assume nobody mixes up prokaryotes and eggshells anyway. I'm not so sure that many readers see enough articles of enough different taxa to pick up on the color scheme, except for the 'photosynthesis=green' connection.
An alternative suggestion from Alakzi here is to redo the box using the original colors as dividers rather than as text backgrounds. I could see that working well, but that would be more work to mock up than I have time for right now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Any appetite for this set? With the exception of keeping the already-compliant and appropriately indistinct color for incertae sedis, these are (close to) the most visually distinct 13 colors possible that meet the contrast requirements for the Vector skin link colors. If you think these are still too easily confused then we'll have to try something else, like using the colors as dividers rather than link text backgrounds, or increasing the font size. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Old color New color New contrast ratio
Animalia Animalia 7.04
Archaeplastida Archaeplastida 7.02
Fungi Fungi 7.01
Chromalveolata Chromalveolata 7.00
Rhizaria Rhizaria 7.02
Excavata Excavata 7.68
Amoebozoa Amoebozoa 7.01
Bacteria Bacteria 7.00
Archaea Archaea 7.21
Viruses Viruses 7.91
incertae sedis incertae sedis 7.58
Colors not produced by this template:
Ichnotaxa Ichnotaxa 7.02
Ootaxa Ootaxa 8.03
Well, these are a lot more vibrant. No objections from me. Alakzi (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Following up, pinging @Rkitko, Choess, and Pigsonthewing: thoughts on the second table above? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thank you for your work on this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a little perkier. I still have a bit of trouble distinguishing between the turquoises, but such are the limitations we're working with. Nice work! Choess (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I was entirely convinced I did this last week, but apparently it was all in my head. Will update the template in a bit.
Incidentally, I copied the tables from the docs and apparently they never did get updated when a color was assigned to the choanozoa, which I'm going to leave alone for now. (Not sure why the box treats choanozoa and opisthokonta as equivalent when one is a subset of the other...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 September 2015[edit]

Suggestion: add new colours for Hacrobia, Stramenopiles and Alveolata. Zorahia (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You will need to suggest which colours, and why, and then get a consensus for the change. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like the colors are being directly set in the taxoboxes for these. Do we use these classifications in significant numbers? I have no strong opinions on that (clearly I am not a taxonomist!) but I did write the script that generated the new color scheme and we have pretty much run out of visually distinctive colors that are AAA-compliant with links. Pinging Zorahia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)