Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

From Freepedia

Template:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archives

Contents

Eucalyptus indentification

Can someone please identify these eucalypts. If these photos are not sufficient for identification, I can quite easily go back and take more - just tell me what of.

Image:Unknown eucalypt02.jpg Image:Unknown eucalypt.jpg

Thanks! --Fir0002 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fir - it won't be easy, with there being over 500 species in the genus. Your best option is to collect a foliage sample, with flowers and fruit if possible, and send it (with these bark/tree photos) to Melbourne RBG for them to identify - MPF 00:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll just leave as eucalyptus' and just put them in the Commons --Fir0002 08:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Acacia Flowers

I'm pretty sure these are acacia's but I would like postive ID, and maybe something more specific than just "acacia" (it looks similar to Image:Koeh-004.jpg, but that species lives in Africa)

Thanks, --Fir0002 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fir - same problem as with the Eucalyptus, there's '00s of species to choose from. Of the ones I know, it isn't far removed from Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata), though the leaves don't look glaucous enough for this species. Again, I'd guess it would be worth mailing a sample to Melbourne RBG - MPF 09:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment MPF, I'll try email something to the Botanical Gardens, but as much as I'm devoted to the project, I'd have to cycle a fair way to get samples, plus as a student at my age I don't have too much loose change for posting things for identification :-) --Fir0002 08:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Palaeontological ranges

Trilobite
Conservation status: Fossil Cambrian - Permian
Scientific classification
Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum:Arthropoda
Class:Trilobita

For groups known from the fossil record, we should consider adding the time periods they are known from to the taxobox. This is something that has been suggested on occasion, but I don't recall any real decision on the matter being made; recently it was brought up again at talk:dinosaur. In general, I think this is exactly the sort of information that should be provided in taxoboxes, provided we apply the usual caveats - i.e. it should be left out in cases where it is uninformative or controversial. Possibly it could go in the header in place of, or as an augmentation to, the conservation status, as shown. Josh

Good idea in many respects, though if only done for fossil taxa it would leave extant taxa with a long history in a bit of a limbo by comparison - e.g. Ginkgo (Permian to Present) - MPF 10:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
{{StatusFossil2}} takes a single "when" parameter. Others could be given the same treatment. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think giving a full range of dates is necessary. It's possible to do that using the fossil2 template - I've changed the above table to do so - but as you can see, the result is cramped. The periods should be on their own line; we could add a newline to the template, but that might be inconsistent with extinct2. I do think this belongs in the header, though, since it relates to the existence of the group.

Ginkgophytes
Conservation status: Endangered
Fossil range: Permian - Recent
Scientific classification
Kingdom:Plantae
Division:Ginkgophyta

If we want to be able to mix and match with any conservation status, then we should probably add this as a separate item instead of multiplying the existing templates. Possibly something like the table shown here - note Ginkgophyta and Ginkgo should be split once we start discussing extinct members. Does this sound good to everyone, and does anyone have any ideas on how to improve it? Josh

I think it's a great idea. I also think it's very important yet straightforward and standardised information that's perfect for taxoboxes. I would suggest adding something such as "Range:Permian-Recent", "Palaeontological Range:Permian-Recent", "Pal. Range:Permian-Recent", or "Fossil Range:Permian-Recent". I think separating Ginkgophyta from Ginkgo will take care of itself as articles on fossil taxa are written. The specific article should pertain to the lowest taxonomic unit (Ginkgo) and the range should also relate to just that unit. It does emphasize that although only a single extant taxon is in a higher taxonomic group, there may be call for a separate article for the higher group that describes the characteristics and lists both extant and extinct taxa. --Aranae 20:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

None of the books I have use a label, but I like fossil range - it clearly refers to when remains have been found, rather than speculation about when the group actually originated. I've added it to the table. I'll wait a little while longer to see if there are any further opinions, but if there aren't I'll go ahead and add this version to /taxobox usage. Josh

I agree that the {{StatusFossil2}} template makes things crowded.... but that could be changed so that the new concept works better. Nothing's set in stone here. *grins* Um... except the fossils. *grins* I think I like "fossil record" better than "fossil range". It gives the same information a slightly different context. Things don't range through time, they range through space moving here and there and back again. Records have a time element to them saying when they were created or died or (in this case) fossilized, as the case may be. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, range usually means geographical range. But record doesn't really imply dates, and ranges can be temporal or even more abstract; the few times I've seen this labelled, it's usually something like stratigraphic range. Feel free to change it as you see fit; I think making this part of the standard is more important than fixing the exact terminology. I'm certain it shouldn't be added to the status templates, though; we would have to add the same thing to each one, and that's a sign things should be modular. Josh

I think range is the better option. Range is a numerical term indicating from X to Y (linearly) or all points within a region in space defined by exterior points (X,Y), (V,W), (A,B), etc. It's valid for both space and time. Using the term record followed by a range of dates implies that fossils for the taxon have been found at all points in between. A taxonomic group may range from the Paleocene to the Recent, but fossils may have only been found in the Paleocene, Pliocene, and Recent. --Aranae 20:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, for the time being I've added this as-is to the taxobox page. I'll also go ahead and add it to a few pages, to see if there's any comments. Josh

I included it on a new page, Bristle-spined Porcupine and found that I needed a <br> between the status and fossil range. Sandboxing it suggested that adding the <br> in an instance where the status is fossil would add an extra blank line. Yet StatusFossil alone without fossil range doesn't insert the extra line. Everything's great on another new page, Spiny rat which is a higher group and therefore has no cons. status. --Aranae 20:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For extant groups that are exclusively recent, Aranae, I think the fossil range should be left out. You're right about the <br> tag. The templates were internally inconsistent, so some added an extra line, but I've fixed this. Josh

Old Taxonomy terms

I am assembling a list of taxonomy terms from the 1911EB list, many of which may be obsolete. I wouls like to invite anyone interested to glance at them and help decide whether to keep or discard them. Any comments on these terms are appreciated. See Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics/15. --DanielCD 15:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It has now been greatly expanded as well. --DanielCD 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of Italics

(Query moved here from Wikipedia talk:How to read a taxobox. Gdr 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

In the past, when editing some botanical pages, I have italicised plant Families (following the standard procedure of the British RHS (Royal Horticultural Society) in all of its publications). In some cases this has subsequently been reverted, and I now see that the families in "How to read a taxobox" are in roman rather than italics. Is this the internationally accepted format? SiGarb 20:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen any such standard. But evey Journal has its own set of standards (or more correctly formatting) that it adheres to for consistency appreciated by subscribers. These are not standards that extend beyond the publication. - Marshman 18:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
And being that Wikipedia is a publication of a sorts, we've set the standard as italics on Genus level or below. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Roman type for suprageneric ranks of plants is a very common publication style, so much so as to be very nearly universal. I'm actually very surprised at the example of the RHS - the New RHS Dictionary of Gardening uses Roman type, as does the RHS Plantfinder and the Garden, unless they've changed very recently - MPF 22:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The ICBN itself italicizes all ranks, which is probably meant to be exemplary, although not many things follow it. I might note that italicized families and orders are fairly common when discussing bacteria, but I don't think I've ever seen them used for animals or protozoa. Josh

Conservation status tag format errors

There's a format error in {{StatusPrehistoric}}, {{StatusExtinct|when=c.[[]]}} and {{StatusEndangered}}, in that they force a carriage return after them (the other status tags don't). Could someone who knows how to edit these please correct them! - Thanks, MPF 01:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? All the status tags I tried seemed to force carriage returns, and they don't seem different internally. Josh
I was going on the page layout resulting at Tadorninae, where Prehistoric, Extinct and Endangered are followed by large gaps in the list, while the others aren't - MPF 10:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Fixed by removing the blank lines. JoJan 12:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jo, though there's still gaps after Réunion Shelduck and Mauritius Shelduck, which aren't there in the edit page - I'm baffled - MPF 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
So am I JoJan 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem was that some of the templates contained an extra line before the comment, which broke up the bulleted list. I've fixed it. Josh

Thanks, that's got it! - MPF 23:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Unknown Plants

Some more plants to identify:

Narcissus, a garden cultivar

A Photinia species

tree of previous flower photo

Leucojum aestivum

--Fir0002 08:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

My idents added to each photo - MPF 12:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks as always for your accurate and prompt responses MPF! --Fir0002 11:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Domestication

I remain uneasy about conservation status for chicken, domesticated goose domesticated turkey etc. Instead of "secure", why not have a status "domestciated"????. jimfbleak 05:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be good with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Identification of fish and seaweed

Hi there! It seems we have some fish and seaweed on the WP:RD/SCI subpage of the reference desk. Could someone go over and take a look? Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 01:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dicot flowering plant taxoboxes

These all still contain the paraphyletic taxon Magnoliopsida. I think it is about time we instituted at least a change to Rosopsida for the orders in that taxon, which is well established as monophyletic. Anyone want to set up a robot to do the task?

It means changing 

{{Taxobox_divisio_entry | taxon = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[Dicotyledon|Magnoliopsida]]}}

to 

{{Taxobox_divisio_entry | taxon = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[Eudicots|Rosopsida]]}}

for the relevant orders (see list at Eudicots)

Whether the remainder should have [[Dicotyledon|Magnoliopsida]] changed to [[Palaeodicots|Magnoliopsida]] is more difficult; that group is still paraphyletic, but not all of the formal class names have been sorted and published yet.

MPF 01:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is any of this actually published? I don't see any citations in Eudicots. Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't allow us to use preprints as sources... :-) Stan 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Rosopsida Batsch, Dispos. Gen. Pl. Jenens.: 28. 1788 [1] [2] is a published name, so we can use that safely. I agree the others are difficult, though Magnoliopsida can safely be used for the magnoliid orders, and some of the others appear to be published (second ref above, scroll down to "Higher Taxa Accepted by Reveal with Authorships") - MPF 23:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of the name itself so much (sometimes it seems every imaginable name has been published by somebody :-) ), as the "well established" part. What do we say if some contrarian comes along and points to a giant pile of current literature that doesn't use Rosopsida? Stan 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much true about everything being published! Reveal is a very highly respected botanist so it would be reasonable to say we're following his lead. I'm not aware of any large body of (recent) literature that uses anything else; it is a sibling taxon to Liliopsida which we do use, so it actually looks odd now not to use it. - MPF 09:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It is still a bit confusing, e.g. the University of Hamburg (Germany) still gives three classes  : Magnoliopsida, Rosopsida and Liliopsida (see here : [3]). And AGP II doesn't even mention the word Rosopsida, but goes directly to Eudicots etc... . I have no personal preference but I think this whole question should be thoroughly discussed first, unless we attract adverse criticism. Can we rely on a recent scientific publication or on enough recent reliable sources ? JoJan 12:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Eudicots and Rosopsida are the same taxon - they are effectively a common name and a formal scientific name respectively (like comparing Monocots and Liliopsida) - MPF 14:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the taxoboxes you use for animals, plants etc.

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template behavior changes: Default and arg transclusion, start reading at For those interested. You could potentially redesign the taoboxes you use using this new syntax. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Cypriniformes
Scientific classification
{{regnum: {{{2}}} | Animalia}}
{{phylum: {{{2}}} | Chordata}}
{{classis: {{{2}}} | Actinopterygii}}
{{ordo: {{{2}}} | Cypriniformes}}
Unfortunately having to list all optional parameters seems to prevent them from being useful for taxoboxes, where the number of items varies drastically. I notice, though, that templates can now be chained. When we started, we would have liked to use a single taxobox_entry template that took two parameters, as shown at right, but it wasn't really possible at the time. I think we should adopt this; we could also add a second taxobox_entry_authority template. Josh
The reason why we couldn't is because there was a limit (5?) on the number of repeated uses of a template in a single article. A you can see, that limit is no longer an issue. I think we need a bot to make a assive change....... - UtherSRG (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually you don't have to, see the hack that was posted to get around it. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 08:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
(See the village pump page for the example that avar is talking about). That's awesome... combining the new code with old "if defined call" hack means that we can finally create a taxobox that separates data from presentation. The implementation might be a little complex under the hood, but this wont effect end-users creating new taxoboxes much. I strongly recommend we move to this model. Pcb21| Pete 09:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_image_opt|{{{image}}}|{{{image_width}}}|{{{image_caption|}}}}}
Lamiales{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{status}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_fossil_range|{{{fossil_range}}}}}
Scientific classification
{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Domain|{{{domain}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{domain_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superkingdom|{{{superregnum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superregnum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Kingdom|Plantae}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{regnum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subkingdom|{{{subregnum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subregnum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superdivision|{{{superdivisio}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superdivisio_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superphylum|{{{superphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Division|{{{divisio}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{divisio_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Phylum|Magnoliophyta}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{phylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subdivision|{{{subdivisio}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subdivisio_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subphylum|{{{subphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Infraphylum|{{{infraphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{infraphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Microphylum|{{{microphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{microphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Nanophylum|{{{nanophylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{nanophylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superclass|{{{superclassis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superclassis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Class|Rosopsida}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{classis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subclass|{{{subclassis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subclassis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Infraclass|{{{infraclassis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{infraclassis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superorder|{{{superordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Order|Lamiales}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|Bromhead}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Suborder|{{{subordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Infraorder|{{{infraordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{infraordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superfamily|{{{superfamilia}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superfamilia_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Family|{{{familia}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{familia_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subfamily|{{{subfamilia}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subfamilia_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Supertribe|{{{supertribus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{supertribus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Tribe|{{{tribus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{tribus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subtribe|{{{subtribus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subtribus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Genus|{{{genus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{genus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subgenus|{{{subgenus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subgenus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Species|{{{species}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{species_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subspecies|{{{subspecies}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subspecies_authority}}}}}

{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_binomial|lightgreen|{{{binomial}}}|{{{binomial_authority}}}}}{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_binomial|lightgreen|{{{trinomial}}}|{{{trinomial_authority}}}}}{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_subdivision|lightgreen|Families|{{{subdivision}}}}}{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_image_opt|{{{range_map}}}|{{{range_map_width}}}|{{{range_map_caption|}}}}}

{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_image_opt|{{{image}}}|{{{image_width}}}|{{{image_caption|}}}}}
Stoat{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|Conservation status: Lower risk{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_fossil_range|{{{fossil_range}}}}}
Scientific classification
{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Domain|{{{domain}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{domain_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superkingdom|{{{superregnum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superregnum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Kingdom|{{{regnum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{regnum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subkingdom|{{{subregnum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subregnum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superdivision|{{{superdivisio}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superdivisio_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superphylum|{{{superphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Division|{{{divisio}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{divisio_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Phylum|{{{phylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{phylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subdivision|{{{subdivisio}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subdivisio_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subphylum|{{{subphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Infraphylum|{{{infraphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{infraphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Microphylum|{{{microphylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{microphylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Nanophylum|{{{nanophylum}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{nanophylum_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superclass|{{{superclassis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superclassis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Class|{{{classis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{classis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subclass|{{{subclassis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subclassis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Infraclass|{{{infraclassis}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{infraclassis_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superorder|{{{superordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Order|{{{ordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{ordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Suborder|{{{subordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Infraorder|{{{infraordo}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{infraordo_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Superfamily|{{{superfamilia}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{superfamilia_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Family|{{{familia}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{familia_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subfamily|{{{subfamilia}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subfamilia_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Supertribe|{{{supertribus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{supertribus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Tribe|{{{tribus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{tribus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subtribe|{{{subtribus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subtribus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Genus|{{{genus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{genus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subgenus|{{{subgenus}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subgenus_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Species|{{{species}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{species_authority}}}}}{{ |{{{3|{{{3}}} }}}|3={{{4}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_entry|Subspecies|{{{subspecies}}}}}{{|{{{3}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_authority_opt|{{{subspecies_authority}}}}}

{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_binomial|pink|{{{binomial}}}|{{{binomial_authority}}}}}{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_binomial|pink|{{{trinomial}}}|{{{trinomial_authority}}}}}{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_subdivision|pink|{{{subdivision_ranks}}}|{{{subdivision}}}}}{{|{{{3|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}}}}|3={{{4}}}|4={{{5}}}}}}|Template:Taxobox_image_opt|{{{range_map}}}|{{{range_map_width}}}|{{{range_map_caption|}}}}}

| image=hermelin_winterfell.jpg | image_width=200px | image_caption=Stoat | regnum=Animalia | phylum=Chordata | classis=Mammalia | ordo=Carnivora | familia=Mustelidae | genus=Mustela | species=M. erminea | binomial=Mustela erminea | binomial_authority=Linnaeus, 1758 }}

Sorry, I guess I should have been paying more attention. I've created a new template using optional parameters; the Lamiales and black-footed ferret boxes to the side use it (I've removed another taxobox to make room). It also has options fossil_range, range_map, and trinomial, which I think covers everything we need. The only problem is that the subdivision list gains extra spaces when it's split over multiple lines in the page source. Note I've used HTML tables instead of wikitables, which don't seem to handle whitespace intelligently enough to be used with the optional parameter templates. What do people think? Josh
Great work, but you might want to use pure wikitext tables instead of html tables, unless that's troublesome, please move this to Template:Taxobox (which is unused in the article namespace) so that we can start using it on articles immitiately. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 04:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem I'm having. If I put each If defined template on a separate line of text, the linefeeds persist when the parameters aren't defined, creating a lot of extra whitespace in the table. As such, I've been putting them all together, without whitespace. Wikitext tables don't work that way, since they can only have a single |- per line. That's why I've been using HTML tables, and I thought I had the problem solved. However, revisiting this page now a lot of whitespace has appeared in the Lamiales table (which omits more parameters), without anyone changing anything. Before we can start using this, I need to figure out what happened and see how it works for other people. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Josh

I fixed that problem, it was that someone had put <noinclude> on a seperate line in some of the if defined templates that introduced an extra whitespace, which I removed, I also rewrote your templates to use wikitext rather than html and didn't encounter any of the problems you mentioned, to the side here is my template fed with your data (as you can see they produce identical results, with no whitespace). —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 15:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That looks good - the empty comments you've put in seem to fix the problem. I've copied the whole thing to the article namespace, as requested. It took some tweaking; it seems there needs to be an empty line at the start of Template:Taxobox_entry, but that doesn't persist when you edit, so I've marked it with another comment. I've change the two samples to use it, and I think all the remaining problems are solved. Unless someone has problems with the display, we should start using it. Thanks very much, Ævar.

One minor note. I've changed it so the new templates won't automatically italicize the name in the binomial section. This is partly because it makes it hard to do Candidatus species, and partly because for consistency with the other arguments. --Josh

I still have one problem with it, the image syntax, currently it's: 

| image=[[Image:hermelin_winterfell.jpg|200px|Stoat]]
| image_caption=Stoat

but I think it should be 

| image = hermelin_winterfell.jpg
| image_width = 200px <- optional, the default would be 200px
| image_caption = Stoat <- optional, this would be usd as the alt text for the image as well as for the the caption

Comments? —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 15:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it, passing image_caption optionally works but image_width doesn't at all for some reason. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Some further comments:

  • When you include {{{status}}} you shouldn't have to add <br> to {{{name}}}, the template should take care of that
  • In order to make copy-pasting these to other languages easier we shouldn't have anything like | regnum=[[Animal]]ia but rather | regnum={{Animalia}}, the same for {{{phylum}}}, {{{classis}}} etc.
  • {{{*_authority}}} should be split into {{{*_authority}} and {{{*_authority_date}}}
  • The italics/bold/italics-bold on {{{genus}}}, {{{species}}} and {{{binomial}}} should be added by the template, not passed to it in order to maintain a uniform look.

—User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on several points.

  • Bold is used for groups that only contain the organisms being discussed. For Lamiales this is the order, for stoat the species, for something like Symbion everything from phylum down. Because it varies, it can't be part of the template behavior.
  • Automatic italicization for genera and species is usually ok, but as I said it makes it difficult to handle Candidatus species (e.g. Phytoplasma, Pelagibacter). Since names have to be italicized separately in the name and subdivision fields, I think it actually makes things simpler to have them manually italicized everywhere.
  • Giving the date separately makes it hard to handle cases where the citation has a different form, such as when it is in parantheses (e.g. black-footed ferret) or has been notably emended (e.g. Amoebozoa). I don't really see the benefit.
    • The benefit would be that copying it to another language which doesn't use the format "$NAME, $YEAR" would be easier, but if it creates trouble it's probably not worth the effort. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I do support making things easier to transport between wikis; that's why most ranks are in Latin. Still, we want to make things easy to edit here, too. It might be a good idea to have Template:Animalia-type templates in some cases, but requiring them for every taxon would be sacrificing usability, and as such it the need shouldn't be built into the template. Blind copy-and-paste should be discouraged anyways, since taxoboxes often have English comments in them.
    • I meant that we should pass them as genus = {{Animalia}}, or genus = {{Taxon classification:Animalia}} or something like that, when that would mean that when they're copied to another wiki the names only ever have to be translated once, which belive me is a huge benefit (I've been translating a lot of animal articles to iswiki, this could still be left out in the cases where comments or something else is needed although genus = {{Taxon classification:Animalia}} (comment here) should work. Another huge atvantage of this is that we'd automatically build a multilingular dictionary of taxon names which could be spidered by a bot and moved to wiktionary. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about the {{{status}}} tags in theory, but the pre-existing templates don't include a linefeed, and I wasn't sure it was worth creating a second set over. You can experiment with it, of course. When you're done, though, I think we should protect the new templates and start using them, since nobody else seems to have any comments or objections. Josh

I inserted a hack so that <br> is inserted between the two if {{{status}}} is defined so there's no need for passing a linebreak manually. Please don't protect the template as non-administrators (such as myself) may want to work on improving it. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, once we start using it in many places it will probably have to be protected, but I'm happy to leave it for now. I've rewritten the guidelines to use the new template at /taxobox usage new, and if nobody objects, I'm going to move them to /taxobox usage and the old stuff to /taxobox usage old. It's funny how little input there's been for such a fundamental change, but I'll assume it means there's no problems.

Why? Just because something is widely used doesn't mean it has to be protected, protection is a temporary tool to use against vandalism, not something that should be permanent on certain pages/templates. Anyway, sure, move the usage thing. —User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing I noticed: {{StatusExtinct}} takes a when argument. You know more about piping than I do - is there a way to provide that in the current framework, or do we have to nest the status inside another template to accommodate this? Thanks again, Josh

I don't know, perhaps have two paramaters? status = and extinct = ?—User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to send named parameters through an if. After some thought, I've changed things to send the status through another template. That way the <br> tag is taken care of, and the status templates can be used regardless of what parameters they take, just like the other arguments. I've started using the new template on some pages. Josh

Wrong place?

This is probably the wrong forum, but I'm not sure of the correct one, so apologies.

At present articles have the time and date of the last edit at the bottom of the page. Would in be possible, or indeed desirable, to add, either there or on the Page history statistics, the current size of each article? jimfbleak 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.freepedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life.html"


Views
Personal tools
Similar Links