Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 7

Redesign proposal (from Village pump)

This discussion was copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

Click for a larger image...

Hello! , I am faelomx and I have much style. Already in serious, Is not taxobox something sober with that color plain? … Because something does not have life that is “on the life”? … then it can here have a visual improvement and dynamic in taxobox… and… improving what there is it can be taxobox but beautiful of all wikis! :) OK? …. what seems to them? You hope that you like,… will like…

Faelomx 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - [talk me]

• This is probably best discussed on the talk page of the template you wish to improve. Also, if you want, you can add color definitions to your personal style sheet, and the template will appear colorful to you. (Radiant) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wiki in spanish do not understand that webpages has evolved and that they have remained in the past with respect to the style, english-wiki, is much colorful and much style, it is for that reason that my style in spanish-wiki seems that they do not like… that it suffers! :)
Faelomx 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - [talk me]

It's colourful. I'm not sure if it fits in the current style of Wikipedia. Do you have the source of this template somewhere? It looks like a complicated template, so I'd like to check if it works in all browsers. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Eugène van der Pijll: Yes it is colourful, no very colourful, ...maybe in pastel colors? about the browsers... run!!, 'cause this template it will use 5 CSS class, in pink, in yellow, in gray, in green & in blue... only. greetings , Faelomx 12:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. Can you clarify? (Lo siento, no comprendo su comentario pasado. ¿Puede usted clarificar? Si usted necesita, trate usted a responder en inglés, y entonces en español) —Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is incredibly attractive, yes, please just write in Spanish. The colors are not such a big deal, even using our own colors, it would be a lovely visual presentation style wise for our taxoboxes. IMO. KP Botany 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I find our current design quite ugly, but this one, while very attractive, is amazingly off putting and a very poor fit with wikipedia's style. I would prefer to make it more simple rather than like this colourful monstrosity.. like infoboxes found elsewhere on wikipedia.. e.g. see Capcom and imagine the infobox as a taxobox. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Colorful monstrosity? Well, the colors are used to code for kingdom, though, and they are rather useful. When I, rarely, get an organism from the Random Article generator, a single glance at the taxobox instantly tells me, if the name is completely unfamiliar, something about the organism. The infobox you showed is busy text that must be perused--the idea behind the taxobox is to arrange information systematically to facilitate the quickest retreaval. I don't see how the infobox you linked to did this in a way that the current taxoboxes and this new design don't--please elaborate.

In spite of the many problems with taxoboxes, and my many frustrations with them, they do achieve their purpose, and were well-thought-out initially. KP Botany 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[EN]Yes!, only this is a sample, you will be able to contribute but ideas to improve it. But for me I design this "pretty templatezz", but it is not obligatory, we can put to us in common, to do “global desing”.

[ES]No hace falta que sea igual que ésta, sino podemos debatir sobre el mejor diseño y listo!

Faelomx 10:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Translation of above: It's not necessary that the template look just like this, but we can instead debate over the best design).

But do you have the source code? We need to make sure it works in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc. (Pero, tiene Ud. el código CSS? Es necesario que el código funciona in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc.) (y lo siento por mi español malo) —Mets501 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty. I may be alone in this, but I like the solid color as opposed to just having the color in little bands at the top. If the taxoboxes were color-coded (a good idea) it would make sense to have the color be as prominent as possible. I also like the rounded edges and, basically, everything. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I designed this one taxobox, thinking about the present one but improving it:

• Cleared corners & rounded edges.
• degraded bgcolor.
• scientific Name under the common name.

Try it!!!, see a prototype of this taxobox in a article here | here all codes and more...
Faelomx 09:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your prototype doesn't seem to work for me. I'm using Internet Explorer 6. The infobox is cut in half. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have IE 6 and it works just fine for me, so it's not the browser that's at issue with ONUnicorn's viewing. KP Botany 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Try what? all I can see is an image of said taxobox, and some text encloased in some soft of template, where is the code for this taxobox? where can we see it in action? do you have a running example anywhere? _→AzaToth 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's just an image. Yes, need a coded one to check, not an image!KP Botany 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

test this --> http://es.pokemon.wikia.com/wiki/Usuario:Faelomx Faelomx 17:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cute, but it's not flexible enough. The width of the taxobox should not be fixed, as it is by the images used in this one. (I'm not sure it would pass even if this problem were fixed) —Pengo 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservation status

Tyrannosaurus Temporal range: Late Cretaceous
Conservation status
Very very dead (an asteroid hit me)
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Family:	Tyrannosauridae
Binomial name
Tyrannosaurus rex

I've put the conservation status in its own section and added a diagramatic graphic thing. The diagram is slightly different if the taxon was evaluated with the old IUCN system (e.g. Orca) or the new system (e.g. Trocaz Pigeon). (The "status_system = iucn2.3" field that Beastie Bot was adding to taxoboxes was in anticipation of adding this graphic. It defaults to the new system.) If people hate the whole thing, it can be reverted. I don't add the graphic to extinct species (eg Golden Toad) because it would be in poor taste. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 09:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This change has created a very bland conservation status section for fossil species, as it simply lists "Fossil" in plain text under a new heading, which to me is less aethetically pleasing than having it in unobtrusive small text within the main taxobox header (see Tyrannosaurus as an example). Any way to spruce this up, or at least increase the amount of information contained in this new section? Off the top of my head, combing fossil and extinct may work, e.g. Extinct (fossil). Combining the fossil range section into the conservation status section would be kind of cool, especially if a timeline diagram could be incorporated in place of the threat level diagram.Dinoguy2 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another problem: it makes taxoboxes with images that are smaller than the width of the new image display a white margin round the species image and/or range map - not very pretty (a few examples: European Robin, Basking shark, Bald Eagle, Ring-tailed Lemur, Ocelot) Yomangani^talk 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard width for the taxobox image tends to be 200px. The conservation diagram seems to be wider than this.Dinoguy2 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the image width problem (the status diagrams were set to 200px too, but had padding, which is now removed). As for the fossil status.. can't we just remove the status altogether? it seems unnecessary? there is already fossil range. Otherwise, you can just put whatever you like in there. If it's not a known code, then it defaults to whatever you write in the status field (see example) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem removing Fossil status altogether, but there are hundreds of pages that use it. If somebody could make the code "status = fossil" produce something like "Extinct (fossil)" or simply combine it with "status = ex", this might be a better solution. Or, if possible, just have the "status = fossil" code null the whole Conservation status section, since fossil animals don't fall within any ranking system like the IUCN anyway, that I know of.Dinoguy2 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've changed the text to "Extinct (fossil)" for now. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, except you misspelled Extinct as Exinct ;) Dinoguy2 01:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Extinct birds for example uses three different statusses for extinct. Just "Extinct" when it is since 1500 AD (IUCN), "Prehistoric" for Late Quaternary prehistoric times and (usually) known from specimens not completely fossilized, and "Fossil" for species known only from fossils. I would suggest these three different ones, OR use for all "Extinct", but than also "Extinct (prehistoric)", like it now is with fossil species. And useing the new graphic for all IUCN status, including the extinct one. Peter Maas\^talk 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to represent one of these timelines in 200px?: Geologic_timescale#Graphical_timelines —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to hide the Conservation Status when there's a fossil range, but haven't quite got it working (some white space keeps appearing).. anyone want to try getting it to work: try editing User:Pengo/taxobox and see the results at User:Pengo/taxotest. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Surely both fossil range and conservation status are important for extant species that are the only member of higher categories (i.e. White-tailed Rat). --Aranae 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the conservation status image to be just about the primary focal point of the entire article in species articles with no images. I think it would ideally be smaller and less obtrusive. --Aranae 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be the focal point, it is more important than anything else in the taxobox ;). I don't think it would be possible to do it without losing information. I don't find it is ugly, so I have no problem with it. --liquidGhoul 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a plain black-and-white version that could be switched to on an article-by-article basis? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would an graphic for "extinct" species be in poor taste? I don't see why. I think when you use these graphics for the IUCN categories, you need also one of the Extinct status, as it is one of the IUCN categories. I would also keep the other extinct statusses, like fossil. Peter Maas\^talk 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Current range of the dodo shown in orange.

This is my thinking.. The status device shows a landscape of the categories that are possible for the species, and highlights its current location on that landscape — What its category is versus what it could be. So say, an endangered species like the Maleo may eventually become critically endangered, or may go the other way and become only "near threatened". Even a "least concern" species may one day become endangered. In contrast, an extinct species is extinct. Crichtonian cloning and Lazarus resurrection aside, there is no such landscape for an extinct species. It will never be critically endangered, or vulnerable, or near threatened, or least concern, or extinct in the wild. It is extinct and will continue to be. Adding an "extinct" graphic showing these other categories would be akin to adding a range map to the dodo, or having an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is. Personally, I'd consider that to be in poor taste. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with that, except that many, many species have come back from an extinct classification. It is not fact that many of the smaller animals/plants etc. are extinct, it is just assumed from the lack of finding them. It has happened quite a few times with Australian frogs. --liquidGhoul 05:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I did make reference to Lazarus taxa above, however species which may be extinct but it isn't certain are generally listed as Critically Endangered (CR) or "Possibly Extinct" by the IUCN. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding an indicator of how sick Pope John Paul II currently is, would indeed be poor tast, I agree with you on that. But I disagree when it comes to the extinction status or range maps (that show their former range). That is only informative and educational in my opinion. It shows facts. Not poor taste in my opinion. Peter Maas\^talk 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New taxobox is misleading for endangered species not on the IUCN Red List

There are plenty of species that are considered vulnerable, threatened, rare, endangered or even critically endangered, but do not appear on the Red List. The old taxobox format permitted such species to be listed as "Endangered" (for example), where "endangered" might be defined in some way other than the IUCN definition. The new taxobox format includes a IUCN-specific graphic that incorrectly implies that these species have been classified against the IUCN definition.

Consider for example the featured article Banksia brownii. This is listed as "Endangered" under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, yet does not appear on the Red List. When the article was featured, the taxobox simply said "Conservation Status: Endangered", which was entirely appropriate. Now it contains an IUCN-specific graphic which (a) incorrectly implies that it has been classified by the IUCN; and (b) incorrectly implies that "endangered" is used in accordance with the IUCN definition. As a consequence I have had to remove the conservation status from the taxobox. This is not acceptable.

Hesperian 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and I'm working on it... For now you can do

| status = Endangered (EPBC 1999)

But i'm working on a better method using the "status_system" field —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Hesperian 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed properly (as you already noticed). See this diff for example. I almost didn't have to touch the taxobox template for the new images to work, btw. To choose the EPBC system do this:

| status = EN
| status_system = EPBC

Once any bugs are worked out, I'll look to other conservation status systems to include. The colours are those used by Birdlife International's choices for IUCN categories (as suggested by Dysmorodrepanis), and I'd like to update the regular IUCN category images to use the same colours/style too, unless anyone objects (but that belongs in a new thread). And it's "Status = Delisted" for delisted. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Extinction

The Extinct status should direct to Extinction.

Done. NCurse _work 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Actually, every [[Extinct]] should be rewritten [[Extinction|Extinct]]. There are three remaining. — Xavier, 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

done. CMummert · talk 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Excessively rigid taxoboxes

Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae

"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Wikipedia: Article on Tilia which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mentioned the possibility of using dual classifications in taxoboxes on the WP:TOL taxobox discussion page and it was soundly rejected already. I do have another suggestion along the same lines that I will make, though. I'll add you to my user page to rememeber to discuss it with you. I'll check you move proposal. KP Botany 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox change?

Not being familiar much with templates, I came across a difficulty while trying to disambiguate Biological type. Is there a way that "type" links in taxoboxes could link directly to Type (botany) or Type (zoology) as appropriate and not to the Biological type disambiguation page? (See Asteraceae, for an example.) Thanks for any help, Figma 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ugh! another Bryaism. These two articles should be united, not ambiguated. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neatness

Is it possible to prevent the pink bars from spilling into the borders? JMK 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Need new taxobox template status: "Probably extinct"

This issue came up when describing the status of the Chinese river dolphin, which is believed to be extinct or likely so. 204.52.215.107 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "extinct" be best... and then explain further in the article? ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You can use "status = PE" (which stands for "possibly extinct"). Note that the IUCN currently treats "possibly extinct" as "critically endangered". It's very sad to lose this dolphin. I've removed the "editprotected" tag, but if "PE" isn't good enough then go ahead and put it back. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

can someone please add the heabrew interwiki? here it is:

he:תבנית:מיון

thanks --89.138.114.45 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. interwiki links can be added by anyone to Template:Taxobox/doc by the way. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Conservation status image using Birdlife International colours

Whooping Crane
Conservation status
Endangered (IUCN)
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Aves

Kemp's Ridley
Researchers collecting Kemp's Ridley eggs
Conservation status
Critically endangered (IUCN)
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Reptilia

All the colours shown (for illustration).

If no one has any objections, I'd like to change the graphics for the conservation status images. I've updated them to be a bit cleaner, and use the colours used by Birdlife International (the official assessor of Red List categories for birds). I've already used this look for statuses assigned by the Australian government (e.g. see Banksia brownii), and so now the plan is to extend it to IUCN Red List categories, and also to NatureServe rankings.

Also you might notice I'd like to actually note which actual ranking system is being used within the description. This would default to being left off (as it is now) unless it was made explicit with, for example, "| status_system = iucn3.1".

They're circles to make the statuses more distinct from each other, as some don't slide into each other (namely from CR a status may jump EW straight to EX, and likewise LR/cd may be skipped). —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 14:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (Happy xmas)

Ah, nice. I like the circles better than the continuum; it fits better with the assigned status. And I see you have a 2.3 and 31 version. In my edits, some folks have raised a concern that we only use the IUCN, while there are other systems out there. Most particularly, it is an issue when the IUCN is silent but there is another system that has information, or when the IUCN says something, but a more localized system says something stronger; the latter is particularly true in regards to Australian marsupials, as Australia has its own system. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See my post immediately below - BirdLife has adopted the "CR(pe)" category which is rather useful (denoting species where research is required to determine whether they actually exist). It is not (yet) used for anything but birds, but can be applied at the author's discretion for other taxa as well that are suspected but not verified to be extinct. As it is a subcategory of CR, with the proposed change in the template, it links where it should link. Dysmorodrepanis 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Having the CR image for PE lead to revert wars and general confusion for Baiji and basically doesn't work.

Another possible image is this one:

e.g. (see baiji below) What do people think of the o?o graphic? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 09:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Baiji
Conservation status
Critically Endangered, Possibly Extinct
Scientific classification