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.

Is there anyway to get a list of all new articles that have the ((taxobox)) template in? You can do it manually by searching for it on the new page list but I was wondering if there might be a simpler way. Smartse (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New articles appear at the end of the list at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Taxobox (don't forget to turn off "Show Redirects" and "Show Links", so that only transclusions appear).

This is an undocumented accident of database implementation, rather than a deliberate feature: when an article is created it is given a unique id number which serves as its primary key. The easiest way to obtain a unique number is to increment a counter; thus each new article's key is greater than all the keys of all the articles created before it. The database query that services Special:WhatLinksHere requests does not impose an order on the results, so they come out in key order; i.e. the newest articles last.

An inspection of the first page will suggest that what I am saying is wrong—the first page does not appear in order of page creation, and seems near to alphabetical order. However these are old articles that would have suffered through numerous schema changes; most likely they have been re-keyed at some point. If you go to the trouble of clicking through to the last page of results (the quickest way is to set the view to "500" then manually change the URL to "5000") you will see that I am right.

Sorry, this is a pretty weak solution to your problem; but it is the best I can offer.

Hesperian 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I think searching for taxobox in new pages is probably going to be easier but thanks anyway. Could something similar to the tags that appear on new articles (e.g. coi-spam be developed? It would be nice if these could be used to help make articles better rather than removing vandalism. Smartse (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find what the definition of a good image for a taxobox would be, or if there is a standard for it. Also, are galleries of images in articles encouraged? Jasonaltenburg (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A few guidelines (which, of course, are meant to be broken):

• For living creatures, use a photo, unless the only photos available are poor quality (such as one taken from too far away). In that case, an illustration would suffice, provided it is (for the most part) anatomically correct.
• For extinct creatures, the folks in the Dinosaur WikiProject have requested that you use a photo of the actual fossils or photo of a skeletal reconstruction, as they wish to present the fact in the taxobox, not the imagination. If no photo is available, then a illustration of a life restoration is acceptable.
• In general, the subject of the image should be large enough to be recognized as the main subject of the image and clearly identifiable from the background if possible. Ideally, a white background, but we all know this is a rather unnaturally difficult background to locate in nature.
• Per Wikipedia ToL guidelines, it is preferred that the subject faces the article (to the left) as opposed to the right. This is purely for aesthetic reasons. If you like, you may flip the image using your favorite tool and re-upload it, provided that falls within acceptable use of the image (if it's uploaded to Commons, you can do this).
• We all love color.
• I'd suggest a minimum resolution of 250 pixels across, but when adding this image to a page, do not use the "image_size" tag...there is a setting on your Wikipedia account that allows the user to pick at what size images should appear, so it's best to leave off the number of pixels (this goes for thumbnail view, too...don't add the "px" tag.
• Healthy organisms are a better representation of the subject than unhealthy ones, unless the organism is better known as unhealthy.
• There has been much debate over whether insects should appear in the taxobox as adults or larva. All I have to say is that I prefer seeing that which I am most likely to find in nature. There is also the argument that insects often spend most of their lives as larva, which is a valid argument. Main point: It doesn't really matter whether it's larva or adult, as long as it doesn't upset everyone.
• There has also been debate regarding images portraying dead or tortured animals. Avoid these if possible, as they will upset some Wikipedians.
• Below are two photos of the Gambian Pouch Rat. Even though it gives a great side profile without any obstructions and provides a human for reference, it's preferred that we use the other one. Reason: The human detracts from the photo. Especially the way he's holding it!

• 
  Worse
• 
  Better

Hope these guidelines are of some use! Remember, guidelines are meant to be broken, so none of these are set in stone...although many may fight for them. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question about galleries...

Let's say you have an article that's fairly short, but you have several photos that really add to the quality of the article (and not just several photos...these actually each provide something unique to the article). If there's simply no room for all the photos, use the thumbnail view to stagger them left and right down the page, and when you run out of room, create a gallery at the bottom. When the article is expanded, these images can be added into the actual content. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was wondering too what the policy about galleries is for ToL articles - apparently judging from this: Hippocampus_(genus)#Gallery they are frowned upon. Personally I think that they are great and that different rules should perhaps apply for ToL articles compared to other projects. The gallery on Sea anenome is great in my opinion and really adds to the article. If the images exist on commons, why not include them? Smartse (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The images at the end of that Hippocampus (genus), in my opinion, don't add to the article. They could be removed and no one would miss them. Sea anemone, however, as you have observed, really is benefiting from the gallery, as it shows a wide variety of forms of the sea anemone. In my humble opinion, we need more anthozoologists in Wikipedia, or at least people who create anthozoology stubs, which would eliminate the need for such a gallery on that page. Perhaps that would make a good project for me after I finish the Nicrophorus project. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia ToL guidelines, it is preferred that the subject faces the article (to the left) as opposed to the right. This is purely for aesthetic reasons. If you like, you may flip the image using your favorite tool and re-upload it, provided that falls within acceptable use of the image (if it's uploaded to Commons, you can do this). Per some FAC debates I recall, if you do this you need to indicate in the caption that it has been flipped (and it is generally not desirable). Personally I consider the idea that it is ideal for an image to be facing inwards rather limiting - unless you have a large article you are limiting yourself to only half the available images! Moreover for many species we only have one image, and I have better things to do than pander to an arbitrary stylistic preference, especially when it is somewhat difficult to judge where an animal is looking anyway. Take this featured image, it kinda looks like it is looking right, but the eye is looking directly at the photographer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you said that...I guess I need to indicate on the photos from David Hall that I flipped them. I'd better do that now while I'm thinking about it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that photos of organisms that are not perfectly bilaterally symmetrical must never be flipped. This happens quite often in books about mollusks, where images featuring spirally coiled shelled gastropods are often flipped by art directors, with very peculiar and misleading results. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I add that it is desirable for a higher-rank taxon to be illustrated by its type species. I'm not upholding this as the sole criterion; an awful photo of the type species is not a better choice than a featured picture of some other species. And sometimes, by an accident of systematics history, the type species is horribly atypical of the taxon. But still it is an important consideration. Hesperian 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good advice...I used to become very confused when chordates were represented in another reference source with the simplest of chordates, a lancelet. Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs)

We have had a discussion about what image to use in the taxobox in parrot, where we touched on how you choose a representative of a large order. Some editors favoured a famous species (Budgie or Grey Parrot), I argued for any species so long as the other criteria were there. Personally I think the idea that the type species is the ideal one is rather esoteric and not a bit limiting. I doubt even many biologists outside taxonomy know much about type species as applied to genera or families. What we did agree on in the case of parrots was to rotate through good images of parrots, something we have also been doing in bird. We have a lory now, we'll have a cockatoo later (maybe a month or two down the line) and a macaw after that (or something like that). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a neat idea...although it would make more sense to code a random image selector to select from a set of predefined images. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I think I'll suggest that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am posting this here because it seems to fall under (or perhaps over) your projects scope. I am in the middle (well, the last few sections are bound to be huge, so maybe I am just getting started) of cataloguing in a tree diagram format everything that falls under "Natura". To show you how wide a scope this is I'll give you just a few examples.

Natura

• Mundus (Plinnius)

• Astra (Plinnius)

• Universe

• Virgo Supercluster

• Local Group

• Milky Way Galaxy

• Orion Arm

• Local Bubble

• Local Intertellar Cloud

• Solar System

• Earth System

• Earth

Obviously would be the "address" of earth.

Natura

• Mundus (Pllinius)

• Tellusque

• Nubes

• Convective clouds of great vertical extent

• Cumulonimus

• Cumuonimbus capillatus

Would be the "Address" for a storm cloud

This also covers, minerals, rocks, animals, plants, viruses, etc. Anything that has ever been catalogued will fall under the scope of this tree diagram. Unfortunately, the program I am using to make the diagrams is nowhere near powerful enough to handle more than a hundred branches at a time, so I've ad to split it up into several subpages. This is still a work in progress, so pease give me as much feedback as possible.Drew Smith What I've done 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that this would belong to a parent project of ToL, such as WP:WikiProject Nature. I'd ask a meteorologist the question regarding the storm cloud, as biologists don't study those often. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC) -- comment retracted by Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} on 04:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. This is a tree diagram of everything that has ever been catalogued by scientific name. Incuding animals, plants, fungi, etc. That is why I posted it here, as those sections might be useful here.

This started as a project that I wanted to do for fun. So I found a tree diagram generator, got the categorizations from the taxonomicon, and got to it. About halfway through I started uploading it to my subpages. Now I want to figure out if, and were this can be used.Drew Smith What I've done 03:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You could easily get away with this in infoboxes in the astronomy articles, since the information is highly relevant, but since no extraterrestrial life is known, this would merely clutter taxoboxes. You MIGHT be able to implement this on the Eukaryota, Archaea, and Bacteria pages, where the information would be relatively relevant. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying not to be (too much of) a wet blanket, but given WP:OR I think someplace besides wikipedia would have to be the answer, at least for the knowledge presented in this form. To some extent things like wikipedia categories, taxoboxes, and other infoboxes provide a hierarchy of this sort, but it wouldn't be exactly this breakdown. Wikibooks, wikiversity, wikia, and probably others might be more hospitable homes. Kingdon (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the format is a little different for wikipedia, but family trees have been done before, and uploaded as images. The one for german monarchs is literally an article that consists of that one image. And it's not WP:OR, it is all from the taxonomicon, I just haven't got around to providing sources. I'm haven't abandoned the catalogueing, but I have stepped away from it until I can find better tree diagram generating software. The software I have puts severe limitations on my abilities to create a truly unique, and full tree diagram. Drew Smith What I've done 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should create your own website (or even your own wiki) for this purpose. I think it's a great idea, but don't think it will fly here without disrupting the encyclopedia. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I found out recently you can make the titles of article be in italics. There are a few different ways to do this, I think they cover all possibilities.

• If the "name" section in the taxobox is the same as the article name you can simply remove the "name" section. The article will be the same but the the title will be in italics. Here's an example diff: [1]
• If the "name" section is a common name ((italictitle)) can be put in the article. e.g. [2]
• If the article title has (genus) or (species) in the title then ((italictitle)) also works - it just changes the first word in the title. e.g. [3]
• If these don't work there's a manual way using the format: <span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">''Eurydice'' (genus)</span> This shouldn't be needed often but I did find some pages. e.g [4]
• This has been superceded, now use the following: ((DISPLAYTITLE:Methicillin-resistant ''Staphylococcus aureus'')) e.g. [5] Smartse (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be lots of articles that this needs to be used on. I couldn't find any mention of this on the taxobox infopage either - could someone maybe change this? Wikiproject plants are discussing using a bot for this. Should this be expanded to other projects? Smartse (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add that to the ones in my watchlist, which are quite numerous. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I tested this out and it seems the italictitle code works for anything with brackets, not just (genus) or (species). E.g. Rhamphorhynchus (pterosaur). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got a new project now. I suggest everyone else do likewise: Traverse your Special:Watchlist/edit page and update every genus/species page in the list. My watchlist is long...I'm taking a break right now halfway through the A's... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, this is going to make things look much more professional. Celefin (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for posting this information. ---kilbad (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the |Name= from the taxoboxes of Podiceps and Tachybaptus, but the article titles haven't been italicized. Any idea why? MeegsC | Talk 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was able to get italics on these pages by removing an extra space in the genus field: ''''' Podiceps''''' to '''''Podiceps'''''. The Template:Taxobox_name requires the genus/species/binomial parameters to exactly match the title of the page. Celefin (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't think to check for things like that. Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I agree that it does make article look a lot better. We should thank User:Chzz too - he spent hours trying to work it out on my behalf after a ((helpme)) request. Lots of work to do though..... Smartse (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with this solution at all. Removing the "name=" from the taxobox template is going to mess up a lot of parsers out there (including dbpedia.org). I agree that the titles of organisms look better in italics, but we should look for a different method than gutting the templates. --Thorwald (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I did something I shouldn't. Species taxoboxes still need to contain "binomial=" for this to work. I have absolutely no experience with computing, but couldn't "name" be changed to "binomial" in any code that was using the name data and there would be no issue? Smartse (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We parser/programmers can easily change our code to use "binomial=", but many won't notice the change until their programs crash and/or generate garbage. The point is, Wikipedians should be careful when they make changes that thousands of external bots, parsers, spiders, etc. rely upon. The change may appear benign to the average editor, but it really frustrates those of us who need standards for our code to work. --Thorwald (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this has already been done to loads of articles already though - now we're in an annoying middle ground where some article are italicised and some aren't which looks rubbish. Admittedly aesthetics aren't the most important point but WP:MOS does say that species/genus names should always be italicised. There have been previous discussions before on this and people seem concerned that it won't be possible to do it on all articles. The ways here aren't ideal but at least they are pretty easy ways to do it to all articles. If the removal of "name" is problematic then perhaps we should use ((italictitle)) instead. I'd like to move towards some form of consensus on this as the situation at the moment is not ideal. Is this the best place to discuss this or would somewhere else be better? Smartse (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Since ((italictitle)) seems to work for the vast majority of articles (without breaking external parsers, etc.), why don't we use that? MeegsC | Talk 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been using ((italictitle)) on all such articles, and it works well. The only ones it won't work on (which I haven't run across yet) would be the ones that include "var." or "sp." or a year, but that's not too critical. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the authors of the parsers could be tempted to use a more standard approach to accessing the metadata, such as RDF - this would future-proof the parsers against any other changes in the code, as well as making it easier for programmers who aren't familiar with WP to access the metadata. On this front: does the current taxobox template produce metadata, and if not, is there an appropriate microformat to use? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a bot request to automate this task. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 13. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Might it be possible to get italic titles without the need for any edits to the articles by a modification to the templates Template:Taxobox and Template:Taxobox name? From what I can make out, Taxobox name, which amongst other things does the italic titles, is only called if the name parameter in the taxobox is undefined. Hence people removing it. Perhaps a workaround could be found related to this. I notice that Smartse has notified Smith609, the author of Taxobox name about this discussion. Maybe they have something to suggest. Celefin (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly scope to make the taxobox templates more effective at italicisation. Add instances where it should italicise titles at Template:Taxobox name, and I will see if I can code them. In my opinion, the best solution would be for the bot to remove the taxobox name where it is unnecessary - adding {italictitle} and having a non-functional |name= adds clutter. I should also point out that Template:Wrongtitle can produce just about any formatting necessary in the title; and comment that if I am provided with more information about how the parsers use the 'name' parameter, I could amend the template so that the removal of the name parameter still allowed the parsers to work. Presumably these parsers use some form of rdf? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - I have noticed that some articles on my watchlist are having the italictitle template added. While I applaud the intent, in some cases this is inappropriate. For instance, at Charniodiscus, the reason that the title was not already italicised was that the taxobox was incorrectly formatted. It's better to fix the taxobox than have a page with a nicely italicised title but an unitalicised taxobox entry. Just thought I'd point this out for those who are addressing this issue. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has thought of this yet, but many articles with scientific names in the titles have common names in the taxoboxes. Does the taxobox tweak work on those as well? Also, I think we decided for the sake of maintaining Internet browser/parser independence, ((italictitle)) should be used instead of the taxobox tweak. Apparently the tax tweak causes problems in several browsers/parsers. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We also need to find a way to deal with names like Amanita muscaria var. persicina where "var." is not italicized. Pzrmd (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I added <span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">''Amanita muscaria'' var. ''persicina''</span> - annoying but there aren't many cases of these. Smartse (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Pzrmd (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, there are all the Wikipedia articles that consist of play and book titles, like Aeneid. What would be the simplest recommended html for a wikidiot like me? Would it be <span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">Aeneid</span>?--Wetman (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't consensus on whether this should be done or not. I found some discussions regarding this before and it seemed as though people weren't happy with using italics on books, plays etc. I imagine that you should post at the village pump before doing this. I've never seen italicised titles on these articles and judging by the fact that not everyone is happy with species and genus article having italic titles (when they are always written like that) I guess some people would be against doing it for these. It can be done simply with ((italictitle)) however. Smartse (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

People, especially Americans, might not be familiar with the conventions for italics in, say War and Peace, but I don't see how they could fail to be "happy" about them.--Wetman (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You will then be surprised to see the the current discussion on on title italicisation. Incredibly, the most frequently expressed opinion seems to be for no italics under any circumstances. Celefin (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is still reading this discussion can I ask one thing? To get back to the question of genus and species articles, I have been updating the instructions for taxoboxes in WikiProject Gastropods, [6] and I wanted to ask, do we have a consensus (at least for the time being) that using ((italictitle)) is preferable to removing the name field in the taxobox? Should I change our intructions to reflect that, or not? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but it can't hurt to take a quick survey. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Invertzoo, apparently there is no consensus at all. Seems to be about 50/50. Don't change any instructions yet. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support, as the other method causes problems. In the case of a var. or other title needing special formatting, use the <span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">''Amanita muscaria'' var. ''persicina''</span> solution proposed by Smartse. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}
• Support. I looked at the code of this template and I think it would be fairly easy to add a conditional for the "var." example. Something like: ((italictitle|Amanita muscaria|var.|persicina)). If there is only one bracket, everything is italicized. If there are three brackets, the middle text is not italicized. --Thorwald (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - as I've explained in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 13 JoJan (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this seems to be the best option. ---kilbad (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Meh Hesperian 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Not really; removing an unnecessary parameter from a taxobox is a good thing, IMO, since it cuts down that massive block of text, if only every so slightly. As for using common names in the taxobox when the article title is the scientific name - I'm against that idea in most cases for the reasons made in the naming convention debates. So if this is an either/or, I'm opposed. If this is a "do what you want", then, well, do what you want, why are you asking me? :) Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not an "unnecessary" parameter, as I explained above. It is very much used by external parsers. That is the entire point of this poll; we are trying to figure out how to keep the "name=" parameter but still have the titles italicized. --Thorwald (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• No Whether the article title is the same as the name in the taxobox is not relevant. The taxobox should continue to have the name field. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm confused as to what the question really is here. But more importantly, check out the RFC below. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That is not the question here. I believe we have reached a consensus to keep the "name=" parameter. What we are trying to do now is figure out the best way to make the title of the article italicized. --Thorwald (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that's true. Guettarda seems to prefer removing the name parameter, as do I. I don't think anyone's explained the rationale for considering these "external parsers". Which external parsers? What are they doing? Why do we care? The name parameter has been excess fluff in the template for years (longer than italicization has been in the picture) and I've been routinely removing it. Can you explain this parser thing? --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • There are many, many non-Wikipedia sites and resources that depend on some kind of consistency in Wikipedia formats and standards. The best example I can think of is DBpedia.org (as I also explained above). It almost exclusively uses infoboxes (including taxobox, etc.) to populate their tables/DBs. They have some pretty smart code that parses the infoboxes, but they still need some kind of consistency. When Wikipedia editors make drastic changes to a particular infobox, as some of you want to do with the taxobox, it messes up their automated parsing of Wikipedia. You may not find this resource useful, but I can assure you many thousands really do (and I am one of them). The "name=" should stay. --Thorwald (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but this still doesn't explain why we should care. Has it been shown that the removal of name= will mess up the external parsers? You do realize you're arguing against changing the template ever again, even if we find a better way of doing it because of an external site that uses information from us. If external parsers had been depending on the stability of the multitemplate taxobox that we (thankfully) rid ourselves of years ago, would you have argued against that change? I just don't buy that argument. If we can change, so can these external parsers. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I tend to agree in that aspect; third-party parsers shouldn't affect what we do...I've always found it rather annoying that these external parsers try to duplicate Wikipedia. That, to me, is plagiarism, even if the encyclopedia is free content. Deliberate plagiarism. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • This is such a backward way of thinking about Wikipedia (and the web in general). Call it "Web 1.0" mentality. The future of the web is all about interlinking information (see: Semantic web and microformats). Many other projects on Wikipedia go out of their way to accommodate external parsers; this project should do the same. I will not sit back and let you guys decide to make the taxobox an island-unto-itself. In fact, I might just create a bot to put the "name=" parameter back in all taxoboxes . . . unless we can agree on a more accommodating parameter to external parsers. here is a good article explaining the problem for external parses further. PS: What DBpedia.org is doing is, in no way, "plagiarism". Do you know the definition? ("The act of plagiarizing: the copying of another person's ideas, text, or other creative work, and presenting it as one's own, especially without permission.") They make it very clear that they are parsing data from Wikipedia (a Creative Commons license; i.e., permission is implicit) and never present the data as their own. --Thorwald (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Seriously? I would strongly recommend you refresh your memory re WP:POINT and take a careful look at this recent arbcomm case. Belligerence, bluster and threats aren't the most constructive tools for bringing people around to your point of view. Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Yes, Actually. I am quite serious about the backward thinking of the proposals above (i.e., "third-party parsers shouldn't affect what we do", etc.). I am trying to argue in favour of the "semantic web" (sometimes called "Web 3.0"). Your calling my comments "bluster" is, really, just bluster on your part (and entirely unhelpful). There is also nothing "belligerent" in my previous comment (I assume you were referring to my "I [just might] create a bot...", but failed to read the "unless we can agree" part?). To be belligerent, I would need to be refusing to agree and/or not trying to reach common-ground; I have proposed nothing of the sort. My previous point stands: We need to work with other sites to enable Wikipedia to "talk" to other data, etc. and you have done nothing to address my stance except belittle it call me names. PS: What does "date delinking" have anything to do with the subject at hand? --Thorwald (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • My previous (unanswered) question remains. If we were at the point we were several years ago when faced with replacing the multitemplate infoboxes with single-template, multiple parameter ones, would you have opposed based on the fact that external parsers wouldn't be able to immediately adapt or there would be information loss? I don't think so. Wikipedia is the 800-pound gorilla, or so it seems. If these parsers want to capture data from us they can, but we must be able to do what's best for our project without concern for theirs, else we worry about the external consequences of every single template edit. The thought is ridiculous. And personally, I don't think Wikipedia will be very useful to EOL or any other external parser project any time soon. It's too much of an in-progress work rife with inconsistencies to work well in that context. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • I completely agree with you here (we would not have changed our policies in the past). I am just trying to find the best compromise (for the future). Wikipedia may have started out Web 1.0, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way. Of course programmers of external parses, etc. can easily change their code; but it may be awhile before (after spending hours of coding, parsing, and populating databases) that they discover the "casual" change on our end. I also agree that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, but it will always be just that. We should strive to steer it in an accommodating direction. That is all I am arguing for here. PS: I am not arguing for EOL, in particular, as I find their work a bit redundant to Wikipedia (and Wikispecies); I am arguing for the more general case. We have no idea how our data will be used in the future and will shouldn't try to limit its use. --Thorwald (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • It seems obvious that we can't ossify to please external parsers. If someone wants to reuse our content - that's wonderful. But we depend on input by volunteers. The taxobox, like other infoboxes, creates a huge barrier to new editors - it creates a barrier even to relatively experienced editors. Despite have edited hundreds of articles, I still need to look things up..."what does parameter x mean?" The more lines there are in the average taxobox, the more of a barrier it presents to new editors. I know I was daunted by them for a long time. The simplification that Ryan is talking about is precisely the thing that made me feel comfortable enough to try editing taxoboxes. The simpler the syntax, the lower the barrier. We're not only a project to write an encyclopaedia - we're a project that seeks to convince the general public to write an encyclopaedia. So accessibility to editors matters more than accessibility to parsers.

                      Moreover, the "|name=" parameter is a terrible one to rely on if you're writing a parser. If the article is listed under its scientific name, there is no meaningful information in the "|name=" parameter of an article that isn't already present elsewhere in the taxobox. It doesn't tell you the level of the taxon. It often doesn't even tell you the level of the taxon. It's the least consistent line in the taxobox, it's also the least regularly updated line. If external parsers are dependent on the least meaningful line in the taxobox, then they're poorly written. We have two jobs - to present information accurately to our readers, and to do the best we can to entice people to become editors. External reusers are at best a distant third behind these two. Yes, make information consistent to them. But not at a cost to our main objectives. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

                  • Let's see...what did you say? Oh yes: Many other projects on Wikipedia go out of their way to accommodate external parsers; this project should do the same. I will not sit back and let you guys decide to make the taxobox an island-unto-itself. In fact, I might just create a bot to put the "name=" parameter back in all taxoboxes . . . unless we can agree on a more accommodating parameter to external parsers.

                    In other words, we need to go out of our way to accommodate you, you will not let us edit Wikipedia in any way other than what you allow, and if we choose to act in a way that isn't satisfactory to you, you'll run a bot to change thousands of articles against consensus. "Unless we can agree on an accommodation", we it follows a threat, is the language of lawyers and thugs. It's a clear threat. There's plenty of room for a civil discussion. One that doesn't come on the heels of threats.

                    As for your question 'What does "date delinking" have anything to do with the subject at hand?'...did you bother to read it? Or are you only here to make demands? The case dealt with exactly the sort of behaviour you're threatening. Please read it carefully, and think about what you're threatening. And then, hopefully, you will step back from the bluster and threats and try to have a civil conversation. Guettarda (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

                    • Okay. I agree that my comments came across threatening. I can assure you, however, that it was not my intention (I was frustrated by what I saw some proposing to do whether or not we agreed on it; e.g., the "name=" parameter has already been removed from many articles). I apologize. Now, can we get back to the issue here? Can you please address my concerns about decisions made here affecting external parsers? Don't just write that they are "irrelevant"; explain why. I have given an example of why I am in favour of accommodating external parses (dbpedia.org) and another example of a person who came across problems using Wikipedia exactly because of the issue were are debating here (see: this). I have also explained the more general case of the semantic web, etc. You, however, have not done anything but engage in sarcastic ad hominem attacks. Besides being comical (i.e., hypocritically calling my comments "bluster" or thuggish), it is entirely unhelpful to the issue at hand. I suggest you sit back and chill out a bit. I am very interested in resolving the issue of external parsers, as I use them frequently. Again, I apologize if my comments came across "threatening" . . . but please first assume good faith in my intentions. --Thorwald (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The name parameter is often unnecessary. The case for keeping it around hasn't been fully explained or is paper thin in my estimation. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The name parameter is often unnecessary. The case for keeping it around hasn't been fully explained or is paper thin in my estimation. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started on RFC on whether or not this template should be used here. All comments are welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a bot approval request that may be related to this. [7] --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It might just be my computer for some strange reason but I article titles don't seem to be italicised on any articles I can find. This includes those with ((italictitle)) such as Homo (genus) and those without the "name" paramater e.g. Caladium. Anyone know why or can fix it? Smartse (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that both italicisation systems were broken by changes elsewhere... {italic title} now seems to be working again after a string function was changed, see Template_talk:Italic_title#Somewhat_broken, thanks to Bob the wikipedian. I believe that the taxobox italic system stopped working after the RealTitle system it uses was recently removed [8]. I have asked for an edit that I hope might bring back the italics at Template talk:Taxobox title Celefin (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. The ((str sub)) template was modified recently, which affected ((italictitle)) adversely, breaking the part of the function that formatted titles containing parentheses. I worked out the bug and got an admin to make the changes; it should be working again now. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice people are discussing whether or not to italicize titles using ((italictitle)). You should know that someone has asked for the approval of a bot to do just this, based on a request from wikispecies.

Writers of Tree of life articles may want to weigh in and let the bot owner know whether or not they want this to be done. It does not seem unanimous here that titles should be changed italicized with this method. You might want to decide this first before a bot makes the decision for you.

[9]

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I just waded through many pages of text in various "naming guideline" pages and couldn't find an answer. How to name a name an article after a species variant? Puccinia jaceae or Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis? At the fungi project there is some precedent for the latter (see for example Amanita excelsa v. spissa or Psilocybe caerulescens var. caerulescens) but these examples may just be the result of those article's creators not knowing the convention either. Advice appreciated. Thanks Sasata (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer depends on what you mean by "variant", and what kind of biota it is. I assume by "variant" you mean an infraspecific taxon; that is, a taxonomic group within a species.

For animals, names follow the ICZN. There is only one infraspecific rank, which is subspecies. These are given a trinomial name; e.g. Canis lupus familiaris.

For plants and fungi, names follow the ICBN, which supports multiple infrageneric ranks: subspecies, variety and form. Therefore it is necessary to specify the rank in the name. Names follow the format [Genus species rank infraspecies]. This is required by the ICBN, but the ICBN doesn't say what the possible ranks are, nor does it say how they should be written. There are a few variations out there.

• Some botanists abbreviate subspecies as "ssp.", some as "subsp.". We've adopted "subsp." because botanists also use "sp." as an abbreviation for "one species", and "spp." as an abbreviation for "multiple species", and it is too easy to confuse "ssp." with "spp.".
• Most botanists abbreviate variety as "var.", but a few use "v.". We've adopted "var."
• Most botanists abbreviate subvariety as "subvar.", but a few use "subv.". I don't know if we even have an article on a subvariety.
• As far as I know, all botanists abbreviate "form" as "f.", and so do we.

I can say with some confidence that this convention is actually in use: "subsp." and "var." are much more widely used on Wikipedia than "ssp." and "v."

And while we're on the subject, infrageneric taxa: we've adopted "subg." for subgenus, "sect." for section, "subsect." for subsection, "ser." for series and "subser." for subseries.

Hesperian 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for the excellent information. This info should be in one of the naming guidelines for all to see. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find your answer at Ternary name. As for animals, however, the answer is at Trinomen. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And thank you too from....--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are problems in attempting to parse and structure information from wikipedia even when the structured format of the taxobox is used. May be something for developers to look at. http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/06/wikipedia-taxonomy-good-bad-and-very.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs)

Perhaps a useful change would be to split the taxobox name parameter into separate scientific_name and common_name fields, addressing one of the concerns of this article. Celefin (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As the author of http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/06/wikipedia-taxonomy-good-bad-and-very.html I should explain that the harvesting I did was pretty rough and ready, and my parser wasn't perfect. Part of the problem is that the Mediawiki template language is very flexible, which is great for users, but problematic for anybody trying to parse it. In terms of content of the pages, here are some of the issues

• Inconsistency of the taxonomic hierarchy: The Taxobox lists the lineage of each taxon, as well as (in some cases) the descendants of that taxon. Descendants may also be listed in the body of the page. In my parsing I extracted just the immediate parent of the current taxon. Knowing the immediate parent for each taxon would be enough to recover the complete tree, if Wikipedia were internally consistent, but it isn't. For example, the Brachyura page lists its immediate descendants as Podotremata and Eubrachyura. The descendants of Podotremata are listed as Cyclodorippoidea, Homolodromioidea, Dromioidea, Homoloidea, Raninoidea. To be consistent, each of these five taxa should list Podotremata as their parent, but they don't, instead they list Brachyura. The only page to list Podotremata as a parent is Etyidae. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_life desperately needs a mechanism to ensure the tree of life is, in fact, a tree. Interestingly, wikispecies: avoids this issue by using a template for the parent taxon.

• Missing taxa in the Taxobox: Ideally every taxon listed in a Taxobox would have a Wikipedia page, but this is not the case. For example, the Taxobox for Pinnotheridae lists Pinnotheroidea as its parent taxon, but this taxon lacks a page in Wikipedia. Hence, the extracted classification contains nodes that don't exist in Wikipedia.

• Inconsistent reference style: My code extracted references using the {cite)) template (I was especially interested in harvesting identifiers such as DOIs and ISBNs). Many pages don't use this template, using, for example, <ref> or simply listing references as links.

These are just a few thoughts. There's a wealth of interesting information in these pages, but it would greatly enhance their credibility if they were internally consistent. Rod Page (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, all these things are fixable. Also, inconsistencies to some extent reflect a process of natural selection. Selection on referencing has been intense, and citation tools and practices have improved dramatically. Rod, could you provide a list of all the inconsistencies between "parent's children" and "children's parent"? But ... please wait for the next data dump and use that; I gather your analysis is of a data dump from a year ago. A lot can change in one year. --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at providing this list. My analysis was based on a recent dump [10] (the blog mistakenly referred to 20080618, but correctly linked to 20090618. Rod Page (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, that analysis is based on a recent dump. --Una Smith (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Latreillia is a homonym. At the moment Latreillia is a disambiguation page. This has some advantages. The disambiguation page can be included in both relevant categories, Category:Crabs and Category:Tachinidae, without too much cognitive dissonance; it would be really strange to include the crab article in the fly category just because of the homonymy. Also, Latreillia could link to Latreillia (fly), a redirect, and the redirect could be included in the fly category. On the other hand, Latreillia could be an article about the senior homonym, now at Latreillia (crab), with a hatnote about the junior homonym. This would be the more elegant approach, and more consistent with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. What do you think? This is a meta-question, because someone who has been keeping track says there are 68730 homonymous taxa (around 29000 names, if you ignore the authority), so it may be wise to decide sooner than later how we should handle homonyms. --Una Smith (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the senior homonym should always be treated as a primary usage over the junior homonym. As for categorisation, one can still create and categorise an appropriately disambiguated redirect from the junior homonym. Hesperian 01:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Hesp up to a point - if the junior homonym was widely (albeit incorrectly) used, it might make sense to put the dab at the name. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out on Talk:Latreillia, I think the reader seeking the senior homonym should go directly to the page; that's why I suggested the hatnote, which doesn't increase the distance for those seeking the junior homonym. I think this is a valid (pun intended) approach even if the junior homonym is widely used: it provides the reader direct evidence that there is something wrong with the name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend a disambiguation page. This also happened in 2008 when (see if you can follow me-- I know this is about to get REALLY confusing) Nichollsia, a name occupied by an isopod, was assigned to a plesiosaur. I moved the isopod to Nichollsia (isopod), set up a disambiguation page at Nichollsia, and wrote a stub for Nichollsia (plesiosaur). The next year, the preoccupation by the isopod was realized in the scientific community, and the plesiosaur was renamed Nichollssaura with the reason "already belonged to an isopod" (I'm wondering if my disambiguation page helped make them aware of this!). Following this change, Nichollsia was deleted, Nichollsia (isopod) was moved back to Nichollsia with an appropriate disambiguation hatnote, and Nichollsia (plesiosaur) was moved to Nichollssaura. So, with any luck, the scientific community will reassign one of the biota to a new genus once they discover there's a disambiguation page on Wikipedia for that genus. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So the issue was that the plesiosaur originally had no valid name. The ultimate resolution matches what I prefer. Perhaps an initial hatnote could have pointed to Nichollsia (plesiosaur), so that the isopod article name would not have had to be changed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that with 68730 homonymous taxa and 29000 names, at least 10730 (= 68730 - (2*29000)) homonymous taxa are not in pairs. --Una Smith (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to make large numbers of redirects, what should their form be? Should the page name include the authority and year, like this: Latreillia (Robineau-Desvoidy 1830)? Or a disambiguator that may be informative to a non-taxonomist, like this: Latreillia (fly)? --Una Smith (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting question. Both the ICBN and the ICZN provide a standard method for resolving naming ambiguity i.e. the full author citation. One could argue that we should be using it. Note, though, that the existence of a redirect at Latreillia (Robineau-Desvoidy 1830) need not preclude the existence of a redirect at Latreillia (fly). Hesperian 07:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Or one could argue not. According to the use of parentheses in ICZN to indicate authorship of a basionym, Latreillia (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) and Latreillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 would be different names. And considering the opposition to italicizing scientific names in article titles, I can just imagine the response to our messing with parentheses.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Belvosia, unless there is not yet a valid name, in which case Nichollsia (plesiosaur) will do just fine.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a misunderstanding: Nichollssaura has had a valid and official name since the announcement in 2008 of its discovery. In 2008 it was named Nichollsia, and in 2009, the paper was republished by the same person, stating the name was changed due to ambiguity. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think junior homonyms are "valid". Hesperian 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ICZN article 52.2: "When two or more names are homonyms, only the senior, as determined by the Principle of Priority (see Article 52.3), may be used as a valid name". Hesperian 07:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant "valid" in exactly that sense; what the ICBN calls "legitimate".--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's impossible. ICBN has no "valid" names, although it does have validly published names, which are ICZN available names. An ICZN "valid" name is an ICBN correct name. Circeus (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me summarize my view: A generic name with a homonyms under different codes should almost always be a disambiguation page (there might be an exception when the name under one code is well-known, and under another is poorly known or considered a synonym; e.g. Erica, although the spider perhaps deserves its own hatnote). A generic name that is a senior homonym in its own code, that has no homonyms in other codes, and that has no use as a word in English otherwise, should never lead to a disambiguation page; a junior homonym should be in a hatnote pointing either to the valid/legitimate name, or to a disambiguated article title for a taxon that lacks a valid/legitimate name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would go further. Whenever a name has only one valid/current/accepted use across all codes (and no other use in English), it should never lead to a disambiguation page. For example, consider an accepted name for an animal that is homonymous with a botanical synonym; I would argue that this should never be a disambiguation page, yet it does not meet the "that has no homonyms in other codes" condition. Hesperian 05:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Guettarda (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but why is everyone convinced Nichollsia was never a "valid" name? I've tried to make it clear that it used to be the valid name until it was changed a year later. It is no longer valid, hence the conversion from the disambig to the hatnote on the isopod page. Wow. I completely feel like everyone's saying I'm wrong, even though I'm saying the same thing you guys are trying to convince me of. (It's a strange feeling!) Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob, when the plesiosaur was first named, the apparent intent was to make a new genus; the fossil clearly wasn't an isopod. Because the name Nichollsia was already in use for isopods, the name of the plesiosaur was not validly published and the Nichollsia (meaning the plesiosaur) was a junior homonym. --Una Smith (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As Una said, and to try to clarify a little further. When first published the plesiosaurs name was automatically considered invalid by the nameing rules put forth by the ICZN. Thus the authors had to find a different name and thus they published the Nichollssaura paper moving the genus to a valid name. The point being that if a name is already being used by another animal it can never be considered a valid name for a differrent animal taxon. Nichollsia (pleisiosaur name) was automatically considered invalid as soon as the paper was published, and the genus didnt get a valid name until it was renamed.--Kevmin (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the whole anger-venting thing there. I was pretty confused as to where I had gone wrong in explaining it. However, it appears I was mistaken. What you've said in the last two paragraphs makes perfect sense and it all comes together now. Thanks for pausing to explain! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)