Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the automated taxobox system as a whole – not just one page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 41.5 days

This talk page can be used to discuss issues with the automated taxobox system that are common to the entire system, not just one of its templates. Discussions of this nature prior to 2017 can be found at Template talk:Automatic taxobox

Those familiar with the system prior to mid-2016 are advised to read Notes for "old hands".

Is this the largest template category on Wikipedia?

It looks like there are over 119,600 pages under the {{Taxonomy}} namespace now. Northern Moonlight 06:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My count is 119,448 taxonomy templates, so the number in the category seems about right. No idea how to find the largest category. — Jts1882 | talk 10:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edits

The Automated taxobox system has become one of the real strengths of WP - many thanks to those who set it up. Under the advantages and costs sections described here, vandalism appears to be one of the principal risks to the system. Is there any good reason to allow anonymous edititing of these templates and pages? Roy Bateman (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be better, but I think any request to protect ~120k templates would meet resistance. It undermines the encyclopaedia anyone can edit ethos. The most used templates do get protection and for others there would need to be evidence of repeated vandalism. We just have to hope they have watchers.

One thing we could try and encourage more is the addition of references to support any new or changed template. An unsourced IP edit then could be deleted as unsourced with no further scrutiny. But it's hard to advocate this when many named editors don't add references or change the reference when they change the template. — Jts1882 | talk 08:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that it would be better, but doubt that any request to protect in this way would succeed. Watchers is a difficult issue; I've given up watching taxonomy templates because I ended up with so many on my watchlist. Because I regularly check the error-tracking categories, I do see changes that create problems and try to fix them, but of course this is not a universal solution. Trying to get editors to add references is highly desirable, but doesn't seem very successful, as Jts1882 says. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can monitor changes to taxonomy templates at Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Taxonomy templates. It is not something I look at on any regular basis. Plantdrew (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for taxonomy templates without source

@Peter coxhead: What about adding an edit warning to taxonomy templates without a reference? It would just show the warning in the editor, but would stop people saving the template. An alternative is a category, but I suspect it would be too big to be useful. — Jts1882 | talk 16:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An edit warning seems a good idea to me. I had thought in the past about a category, but I agree that it would be too big to be useful: no-one would be likely to work through it. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue I often see is editors putting the authority in the |refs= field. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems to have become more of an issue recently. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For warning about a missing refs parameter, how about adding something like this to Module:Autotaxobox

    local refs = frame.args['refs'] or ''
	local sameAsTaxon = frame.args['same_as'] or ''
	if refs == '' then 
		mw.addWarning('<span class="error">This taxonomy template is missing a source in the refs parameter.</span>') 
	end
	if sameAsTaxon ~= '' then

The text displayed needs further thought. — Jts1882 | talk 10:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record:

There are 119,860 taxonomy templates
With no source (~71,400):
- 61,095 have the default message ""
- 10,201 don't have a |refs= parameter
- 95 templates with empty |ref=
With reference:
- 43858 definitely have something in the |refs= parameter (there maybe more if I get a better search)
- 20,594 use a citation template
- 15,258 have a raw URL
- 352 have a wiki linked URL

— Jts1882 | talk 10:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is more references than I had expected. I do have intentions of going back and adding references to taxonomy template for plants that I had created without references (I'd like to see a consensus established to follow WFO instead of POWO before doing so (or a consensus that we are not going to abandon POWO anytime soon)). Plantdrew (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in my experience as a gnome, an error message without a tracking category doesn't help people understand the scope of the problem. It is generally OK for tracking categories to be large if the intent is to fix a problem over time. I have been involved with efforts to clear tracking categories from hundreds of thousands of pages; it is quite possible to make it happen. There is no deadline, after all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tracking category does no harm. When I work on these templates I tend to work on a group of organisms so a generic category is no help and I rely on the search capabilities. However, a large category showing the extent of the issue may encourage others. — Jts1882 | talk 07:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882 Could you work some regex magic to find the number incorrectly using an authority? YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found 748 results for a word followed by a comma and year, which I assume are zoological authorities. I don't see what search pattern can be used to get plant authorities with no date. — Jts1882 | talk 07:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate the issues. That's a good start thought. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This search gets some plant authorities, but also some other stuff. — Jts1882 | talk 09:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, I fixed all those that used "L." as the reference (with or without a date), and a few others. (Among those found in the search above there are about 95 that have just spaces in the refs field, which actually aren't a problem.) A high proportion of those with authorities in the refs field seem to have been created by Roy Bateman, I'm sure in good faith. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter - yes indeed, but am relieved to note that the last one I did included a URL to the relevant Species File page, which I had handy: these seem to be preferred. I have long assumed that the authority with a date (which is a sort of ref. surely) was much better than putting nothing - as in nearly 70% of the templates according to the figures above! That cannot be satisfactory. From my perspective: there is an enormous number of useful genus (and higher taxon) pages yet to be created, but only so many hours in the week that I am prepared to work on them. Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At present the preload text for the refs field has . I'm not sure if it would help, but this could be expanded, e.g. to something like

<!--Full citation to support parent, ideally to a secondary source; shown on this page only; don't include <ref> tags -->

. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would definitely be an improvement. Is the reference solely for the parent? The rank and extinct status should also be sourced, although the parent is most important for these templates. Perhaps "A full citation for the taxon, indicating its parent taxon, ...". — Jts1882 | talk 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those wordings would be better. Parent is the most important part to cite, as it is most likely to vary between sources (either because e.g. a genus has been placed in different families, or sources differ in whether they present an infrafamilial classification). Extinct is generally unlikely to change, and rank is often self evident from standardized suffixes. 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Plantdrew, I think that parent is the most important part to support. I'm concerned about the length of the text; too long and we run into "tldr". So I think I will try .

Now done. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]