Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 14
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Proposal to add featured picture stars to taxoboxes
There is a proposal at the Village Pump[1] to add featured picture stars to featured pictures in article space (below the featured picture, in its caption box, or image caption box in the case of taxoboxes with featured pictures.
The discussion includes asking the question whether they should be added to all featured pictures in articles including in taxoboxes, added just to featured pictures in caption boxes only and not to featured pictures in taxoboxes, or not added at all. Currently to find out if an image is a featured picture the user has to click on the image and its file page indicates with a star in the upper right hand corner that it is a featured picture.
To join the discussion and express your opinion go to the Village Pump. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Introducing flexibility for disputed taxa
Homo floresiensis | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom:
|
|-
| Genus: ||-
| Species: |Homo floresiensis
|- | |
Binomial name | |
Homo floresiensis |
Archonta | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom:
|
|-
| Superorder: |Archonta
|- | |
Orders | |
Oryzomys anoblepas | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom:
|
|-
| Genus: ||-
| Species: |Oryzomys anoblepas
|- | |
Binomial name | |
Oryzomys anoblepas |
Banksia | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom:
|
|-
| Genus: |Banksia
|- |
In a discussion at Talk:Homo floresiensis#Taxobox, some users brought up the suggestion to change the taxobox to introduce a new feature that would change the "Scientific classification" heading to something else when the classification is disputed, as at H. floresiensis. I added a sample here of what this would look like. This would allow us to include the valuable information the taxobox gives, which is valuable whether or not the species is valid, while not giving the impression that we are considering something valid (i.e., taking sides in a debate) that may not be valid.
I think there are two other situations where a similar change in the taxobox would be helpful. One is for obsolete taxa, such as Archonta, where a taxobox is still helpful in showing what the earlier classification looked like, and the other is where we simply don't know what the classification should be, as in the case of Oryzomys anoblepas. I feel this is distinct from a disputed taxon such as H. floresiensis, because in cases like this there is simply no research that has established a classification, which is something different from a disputed classification, in which there are two sides that have different views of what the classification should be. I added similar options to the taxobox sandbox, also illustrated to the right here.
The precise wording is of course open to change. Hesperian proposed "Putative scientific classification", which I don't quite like, because I don't think "putative" has the meaning we want to have here.[2][3] Ucucha 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is pretty cool if it means I can write "scientific classification sensu A.S.George" or "sensu APG-II" etc., where it would be helpful to state what circumscription/arrangement we are following. Hesperian 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? I now set the sandbox so that the |classification= parameter now accepts every value.
- I do think we should be careful with that, though; I don't think we want to have every taxobox say the classification is sensu so-and-so when that classification is completely uncontroversial. A better solution might be to add the possibility to add an inline cite to "Scientific classification", similar to the one we have for conservation status. Ucucha 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. If there are multiple classifications and no consensus on which should be used, then any taxobox will be problematic and sensu won't fix that. If there is a single, broadly accepted classification, sensu is redundant. I can only see it being useful when
- There is a classification with broad enough consensus that it is reasonable for us to follow it in our taxobox; but there are also enough dissenters that it is worth making clear who we are following.
- If a new classification is published, and this invalidates a large number of taxoboxes, then providing a sensu that makes it clear we are using an outdated classification is a quick fix.
- Hesperian 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. If there are multiple classifications and no consensus on which should be used, then any taxobox will be problematic and sensu won't fix that. If there is a single, broadly accepted classification, sensu is redundant. I can only see it being useful when
- Agree with using this lightly. Even in cases where the classification changed recently (e.g. Cronquist to APG in plants), I'd be reluctant to use this feature routinely (a taxobox incorporates classifications from more than one source, for one thing). I guess I have no argument with most of the examples which opened this section, though, and a |classification= parameter which takes free text as its argument seems like the simplest way to implement it. Kingdon (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like Kingdon's term "I agree with this lightly". First, I'm in favor of just about anything that adds a little bit of flexibility to some of these rigid parameters. I'd also like to see an ability to add more intermediate unranked clades for many groups. My only general concern about this is the way it paints the whole classification in a broad brush. Like Kingdon says, the classification is probably an amalgam of different sources. Whoever assigned a skink species to a genus probably said nothing about whether lizards should be treated as Class Reptilia, Class Diapsida, or Class Sauropsida. The "disputed" parameter for H. floresiensis pertains only to the validity of the species; no one disagrees that it's in the genus Homo and all other ranks above that. Likewise, what's uncertain" about Oryzomys anoblepas is its genus, the rest is correct. Any way we can make it clear that there's no dispute as to which genus H. floresiensis is in or that we're not uncertain about the placement of Oryzomys anoblepas in Kingdom Animalia? Even if not, I support this proposal as a step in the right direction. --Aranae (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it's important to avoid rigidity in the taxobox and I see your point that the classification doesn't derive from one single source, but I think we should also avoid putting too much detail in the taxobox. It should give a concise overview of the classification, and detailed information should be given in the text. I think the "disputed" and similar tags should serve as a note to the reader that parts of the classification given should be taken with a grain of salt, and the text should make clear exactly what is being disputed. Ucucha 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like Kingdon's term "I agree with this lightly". First, I'm in favor of just about anything that adds a little bit of flexibility to some of these rigid parameters. I'd also like to see an ability to add more intermediate unranked clades for many groups. My only general concern about this is the way it paints the whole classification in a broad brush. Like Kingdon says, the classification is probably an amalgam of different sources. Whoever assigned a skink species to a genus probably said nothing about whether lizards should be treated as Class Reptilia, Class Diapsida, or Class Sauropsida. The "disputed" parameter for H. floresiensis pertains only to the validity of the species; no one disagrees that it's in the genus Homo and all other ranks above that. Likewise, what's uncertain" about Oryzomys anoblepas is its genus, the rest is correct. Any way we can make it clear that there's no dispute as to which genus H. floresiensis is in or that we're not uncertain about the placement of Oryzomys anoblepas in Kingdom Animalia? Even if not, I support this proposal as a step in the right direction. --Aranae (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We all seem to be in agreement that this change is a positive one, and since it only introduces flexibility and does not affect existing taxoboxes, I am going ahead to request that it be added. {{editprotected}} Please do this edit to {{Taxobox}}. Ucucha 13:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like the parameter name classification. Can we change it to, say, classification_status? Hesperian 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Further style work
|
Hey folks, So I think it's time we started to move towards making this a real {{infobox}}. I've updated the sandbox to use styling which is closer to that expected of modern infobox templates: I've made concessions to the current taxobox styling with regard to font size and width for now so as not to do too much at once. As usual, comparisons are available on the test cases page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Chris, assuming you're familiar with relational databases (you seem like the kind of guy who would be): I don't think of the above taxobox as presenting a single (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) tuple. I think of it as presenting a sequence of (rank, name) tuples. To put it another way, (Genus, Boletus) is not a key-value pair; it is the value of a key-value pair for which the (implicit) key is the tuple (name, rank). It follows that "Genus" is not a key; it should not be in bold; and it should not be wrapped in <th>. Hesperian 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Another revisionI've updated the sandbox to reflect the discussion above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think accessibility here is a red herring. First, table heads can have any style. Bold is the most common browser default, but they can be italic, small, small-cap, line-under, boxed, or even unemphasized. Except that some of the common screen readers would ignore it, they could even be made invisible in the visual display. Second, data tables don't always have to have headers. If they are small, and the meaning is apparent when linearized, headers may not be necessary. Certainly, to a screen reader user who knows about the taxonomic hierarchy, the meaning is apparent. Whether the meaning is apparent to any user unfamiliar with the taxonomic hierarchy is arguable. Third, one could make a case (not a good one in my estimation, but nevertheless) that it is a layout table, not a data table: a linear presentation of "Kingdom, Animalia; Phylum, Chordata; Class, Mammalia..." would be (arguably) as comprehensible. @Hesperian, you were the one who made the convincing argument about the data structure; the headers are the crop that you reap :-). I could go either way, but if they are kept, I'd suggest restyling them.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Other issuesI think there are two other issues here for which we should consider whether we want them:
Regarding the second, I think it's important to have some visual distinction between name and authority everywhere in the taxobox for those who're not familiar with the conventions regarding authorities. In the |synonyms= field, we usually use "small" tags for that; I think the general authority should be consistent with that. Ucucha 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Type species link{{editprotected}} The section header for the type species currently links to biological type. It would be preferable for it to link to the appropriate article, type species. Could an admin please carry out that change in the template? Ucucha 21:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to remove genus2 and genus2_authority parametersBack in early 2006, someone added the parameters "genus2" and "genus2_authority". The reason they gave for doing this was for use in common name articles such as Night heron which span more than one genus. If you visit the article Night heron you'll see these two parameters are no longer used, as "Night heron" is now understood to include 3 genera. This brings me to my point. If a common name refers to a group of genera, the editor should use the "subdivision" parameter, not "genera", "genera2", "genera3", etc. To see the correct way to do this, take a look at Rorqual, which does indeed include 2 genera, but does not use the "genera2" parameters. If it's OK with everyone else, I would like to remove these two parameters from the template. I would, of course, find all the articles which currently use the parameters and migrate them to "subdivision" before deleting "genus2" and "genus2_authority". Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
|