User talk:Jts1882

So I'm using this example to find |status=VU, but I cannot find an appropriate API example which gives me |status_system=IUCN3.1. I could use the API to get the URL for a genus+species, then parse that to obtain |status_system=, but I'd rather not (because its both clumsy and unnecessarily increases server load). Do you know how to get both of these parameters using only the API?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the version number with the API. They no longer use the version number in the recommended citation format for species, with the year used for both year and journal volume (e.g. Panthera leo^[1]). Perhaps the year of the assessment could be used to assign the assessment version (see versions). Alteratively, the doi contains the year and the new format of version number (e.g. 2016-3 in the example).   Jts1882 | talk  15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, then I guess I will have to use the HTML to obtain |status_system=. They still provide the criteria version, and I don't want to deviate too much from the template-norm when doing a large update. I'll obtain and update the |status_system=3.1-type values until a change to the {{taxobox}} and {{speciesbox}} documentations are made. However, if a WP page uses |status_system=yyyy or |status_system=IUCNyyyy, I will update it with the year assessed instead.

The publication year is a reasonably accurate analog to the assessment date, but not perfect. I'll use "Date Assessed" from the web page instead (unless there's an AP[I] for that?).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: I've being doing some digging. There is a lot of confusion in the IUCN Red List article. According to the current IUCN FAQ section, version 3.1 is the latest version of the categories and criteria, which were drawn up in 2001. The 2017-2 style versions refer to the updates of the actual red lists (e.g. the IUCN Red List version 2017.2), which are made several times a year. Any assessment made after the early 2000s will be using the version 3.1 categories and criteria.   Jts1882 | talk  14:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The documentation for {{taxobox}} says that a |status_system=IUCN3.1-type value is required. {{Speciesbox}} gives no such direction, nor examples. And I see your point, that |status_system=3.1 is redundant if publication year >= 2001. That is part of the reason I got involved with the {{IUCN}} template-family, and this effort—I noticed many inconsistencies. I'm not a member of the project, nor do I have the expertise to direct large changes; but, I can help enact them.

To migrate from the |status_system=IUCN3.1-type system to a |<new parameter name?>=yyyy or yyyy.#-type system, at least 3 things have to happen (based on my understanding; possibly more).

1. All existing {{taxobox}}es and {{speciesbox}}es have to be verified that the assessment made is >= 2001.
2. The number of IUCN database entries with most-recent-assessments < 2001 must be determined, or at least agreed on to not be an issue (since their goal is to refresh assessments at most every 10 years; not sure if this is actually done in practice).
3. Then, there will be no need for a IUCN3.1-type parameter, the template documentations can be updated, and then transcluded pages be updated to the new (template) system.

So I suggest starting a discussion (if you so desire) at WT:TOL dedicated to this pursuit, and I will chime in and help in any way that I semiautomatically can :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've found 1 exception to this rule so far: Wicker ancylid, 19670, which uses ver2.3 with an assessment date in 2011.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just passing by this article and noticed 2 African jackals sitting out by themselves unencumbered by any relationship to the Canidae#Phylogenetic relationships. There are some others as well. A good job for someone with the skill-set! William Harris • (talk) • 05:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris:. Are you using Firefox? A major problem with the cladograms is that they are made with HTML tables (with sides of cells making up the lines) and are at the mercy of how the browser renders the tables. Some browsers used to have an ugly tree where branched hang from the top, but most seemed to adopted the same convention. A problem recently appeared in Firefox where the bottom branch of a set of child nodes sometimes loses the vertical line. This doesn't happen in Chrome or Edge, so I assumed it is something to do with changes in Firefox. I'll have a look to see if the clade module has had any changes.   Jts1882 | talk  10:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am on Firefox. That would explain it, thanks! William Harris • (talk) • 10:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

My assumption that it was a change in Firefox was lazy. It looks like an editor made a change to the clade module to make the HTML more compliant with HTML5 and that this introduced the problem. It is still a difference in how Firefox renders the HTML table but hopefully this can be fixed. The cladogram is fine if I use the my prototype of the clade module, but this uses a deprecated feature. I'll raise the issue and see if a solution can be find, rather than just reverting the change.   Jts1882 | talk  10:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be the best approach; the editor was doing the right thing but it gave an erroneous result. William Harris • (talk) • 11:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the problem. It was a quirk of the way Firefox rendered collapsed borders in HTML tables. The edit that introduced the problem was a step forward even though it introduced a problem. I'd tried to get rid of deprecated style attributes but couldn't get it to work properly. Now we have got more compliant code. This is an advantage of the cooperative efforts on Wikipedia when different people look at the problems from different perspectives.   Jts1882 | talk  13:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I confirm that you have fixed it! Good work behind the scenes. William Harris • (talk) • 10:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the link at Central African lion. I'm curious if you think "Odzala National Park" should be updated to "Odzala-Kokoua National Park" at Template:National Parks of the Republic of the Congo, since the Wikipedia article has been moved. I submitted a request on the talk page, but another editor seems to think the article needs further updating before the template should be changed. I'll be suggesting updates for the article soon, but wanted to get a discussion going about updating the template in the meantime. Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I'm not asking you to review all of these, but if you're interested in related articles, you can see where my simple requests to have existing wiki links updated resulted in content removal. I have a conflict of interest, and I don't edit article directly, so I'll let other editors decide if links should be updated or content removed. Here are some examples: Talk:Shire River, Talk:Southern African cheetah, Talk:Southern African lion, Talk:Ulendo Airlink, Talk:West Lunga National Park. Again, no need to get involved, but I'm just pointing out similar requests. Take care, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have received this notice:

Template:Clade has been nominated for merging with Template:Cladogram. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what is proposed; I'm not sure if the proposer understands how the template works. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I don't understand the intent either. {{Cladogram}} is a template that uses the {{clade}} to create a one or more cladograms in a sidebox. They work together. While {{Cladogram}} is no longer absolutely necessary, as {{clade}} can be used to create something very similar using parameters caption and footer with their syling elements (see below), I don't see what would be gained as a sidebox or table container would still have to be created. {{Cladogram}} already does that.

Example with cladogram:

Example using clade:

One housekeeping change that could be considered is to implement the {{cladogram}} with a function in the clade module.   Jts1882 | talk  13:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure Vital articles is list for articles ]TODO(See here: - nominationg of paper-and pencil game - this article just has been not added due to fact that article is not good, not is it already). I also nominated Cristiano Ronaldo to 14 vital players. It seems to me Cristiano Ronaldo and Ronaldo should be listed. Although Ronaldo's career was not stable such like Cristiano (due to injury and overweight) he is the youngest winner of Golden Ball and he had also much more success in national team than Cristiano had. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to do this (and |vauthors= really does need to die), please do it all the way, with |last1=...|first1..., etc. Doing something like |last1=Doe, John X is actually invalid; its falisfying the citation metadata, saying someone's surname is "Doe, John X" and that they have no given name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for producing the useful looking map module. I'm trying to fix wikilinks to disambiguation page Stamford Bridge. I think Chelsea's entry in Module:Football map/data for p.stadia should read something like

{ "Stamford Bridge (stadium)", 51.481667, -0.191111, "Stamford Bridge", "[[Chelsea F.C.]]", "File:Stamford Bridge Clear Skies.JPG" },

and for p.clubs

{ "Chelsea F.C.", "Stamford Bridge (stadium)", -1, -1 },

but when I try either or both changes and preview the demos, the stadium marker just disappears. Please can you make the appropriate fix? Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I finally realised that I'd have to change the demos too. When I edited demo3 and previewed the module again, the marker reappeared but the tooltip and the heading over the image read "Stamford Bridge (stadium)" which isn't ideal. I've reverted demo3 and will leave this one to the expert. Certes (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: You are correct about the entry in Module:Football map/data. The problem was my fault. One, the demos didn't list the correct wikipedia page for Stamford Bridge and, two, even if they had, I hadn't implemented the alias in the code. Unfortunately, the London stadia were my chosen examples and the mistake carried through to three of the demos. I put the module together in a rush as a prototype and haven't revisited it, which I will try and do soon. I also need to write some documentation. The expected behaviour is as follows:

• The list must have the |stadiumN= set to the page name of the Wikipedia article (e.g. Stamford Bridge (stadium)).
• If the parameters are set in the template, these are used on the map.
• Otherwise, if the parameters are available in the Module:Football map/data list, these are used.
• If neither, then they are retrieved from Wikidata.

I have added the alias to the module and updated the demos. At least Stamford Bridge should appear now. Please let me know of any other errors and feel free to make suggestions (e.g. what other information should be included in the popup). Thank-you for taking the time to delve into the problem.   Jts1882 | talk  14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks wonderful: well done! The only suggestion I'd make is to include the team name in the pop-up, if it's not too awkward for the few clubs that share grounds. Certes (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: The stadia that get info from wikidata already show "home ground of Club Name (capacity 10,000)" as a footer. Check the the clubs outside London in demo3 or demo4. If the stadium is shared it will take the first entry (this can be improved upon).

The info in Module:Football map/data is more limited so either needs expanding or dropping in favour of Wikidata. I put this in first before adding the Wikidata options. I'm hesitant to drop it now as some people have an issue with using Wikidata in infoboxes. Perhaps there should be a clear option to use template parameters only, the module data only, or wikidata only, rather than the mixture now.   Jts1882 | talk  15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I only checked Stamford Bridge, and its neighbours for comparison. The non-London popups look much more complete. We should certainly have One True Source rather than repeating it wherever the template is called. In theory a good place for that source is Wikidata, but I understand and share the concerns about relying on it, even in an infobox. Certes (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping up with the changes in spider taxonomy at present is a full time occupation! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jts1882. Since you put so much effort into designing the template subspeciesbox, I would appreciate your comment re this question: do you think it is justified to keep this template in wiki pages on populations that are no longer considered distinct subspecies? Like Visayan leopard cat, West African lion, Asiatic lion, Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, South China tiger, Bali tiger and a few more on tiger populations. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani:, I can't take any credit for the design of the subspeciesbox template, although I do my best to update them when I can.

I think the names of the taxobox templates cause some unanticipated problems. Here the fact that it is called subspeciesbox causes some people to think they should only be placed on valid subspecies. You see this argument more generally on paraphyletic taxa where the argument is that they shouldn't be used because they are not valid taxa (sic).

The taxobox templates are essentially infoboxes displaying information on the lifeform, which includes taxonomic information, conservation status, photos and range maps. I see no reason why articles on populations of animals shouldn't have an infobox. The West African lion is P. leo leo, which is a felid, etc, it has a range that can be shown in a map, and it has a conservation status determined by the IUCN. Why stop showing this information just because the taxonomic status has changed. I would like to add something to indicate that it is a recognised population, which we can document with sources, but the current taxobox options are for forma and variety, neither of which are used to describe the population in sources. Hopefully this will change.

The broader question is which populations should retain articles, which you know is causing some problems. I think all the examples you list are populations that are notable for Wikipedia purposes; they have been studied as distinct populations for a long time. If they are notable enough for an article, an infobox is a useful addition and the subspecies template is the most suitable way of adding one.   Jts1882 | talk  08:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comment! I do agree that the template is useful and makes sense as infobox. And also that the wiki pages on lion and tiger populations should be retained. When I asked you for comment, I had certainly not in mind to propose lumping them together under subspecific names. Frankly : in view of the huge amount of existing (and most likely future) publications about lions in both East and Southern Africa, I would much prefer to split Panthera leo melanochaita into 2 pages on populations, rather than keeping duplicates in pages titled 'African lion' and 'East-Southern African lion'. But that's a different issue, and imo requires broader consensus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycaon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Lion/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jts1882. I'm planning on to do the template for the rankings for ice hockey I created, but I'm having problems with the sandbox template. I'm confused! AaronWikia (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@AaronWikia: The code in your sandbox template is correct, but what is missing is the data for the module. The module has its own data pages, separate from the template data page. I've created a page for the mens rankings at Module:SportsRankings/data/IIHF World Ranking. The excel code to produce the data that has to be place in data.rankings = { .. } is in a comment in the file.

e.g. France: {{IIHF_World_Ranking/sandbox|FRA}}

You can create a new data file (e.g. for the women's ice hockey rankings) by copying the code and editing the information on source, data, etc at the top of the data module. The alias list also needs to be edited for the country name used with the Olympic codes (e.g. United States or USA, DPR Korea or Korea DPR or North Korea, etc.).

I've modified your sandbox template to add the a list option, see {{IIHF World Ranking/sandbox2}}.   Jts1882 | talk  09:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you add a template for flag/link ("ih") for Module:SportsRankings? AaronWikia (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

An oversight, I thought I had changed the links for other sports. I think it was hard-code and can be added to the data subpage. I'll look at this tomorrow.   Jts1882 | talk  20:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed for mens ice hockey. I'll make this part of the data page to allow additional sports teams to be added seemlessly.   Jts1882 | talk  20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done The correct template for the flagged national team link is now retrieved from the data submodule.   Jts1882 | talk  08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would be happy to talk to you. Would it be possible to talk to you via Facebook or at least via email, please? If not, no problem I respect your privacy. Thank you for your cooperation, --Snek01 (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: I'm generally wary of my privacy on the internet. I don't even do Facebook. I use the Jts1882 username widely and wish I'd used something else for Wikipedia, as then I would feel more comfortable being more open. So I would prefer to discuss this here or on the gastropod project page, although if you really think e-mail communication would help I will think about it.

I was reading about gastropod taxonomy a few months ago and noticed that Bouchet et al 2017 wasn't being used. When I checked the project for the recommended taxonomic source I became aware of the history of the gastropod project and the taxobox systems. The automatic taxobox system has developed a lot since 2011 when the project decided against using it in, iirc, 2011 (I don't think speciesbox existed then). I think that it can handle what is needed to implement Bouchet-2017/WoRMS and that the automatic system will make it easier. Once the taxonomy templates are set up the changes are easy, generally just needing the new template name and the taxon. For the gastropods (and other specious groups) I think showing extra taxa is useful, The subterclass is now fully implemented in automatic taxobox and can be shown with the |display_parents= parameter.

Anyway, let me know how I can help. Starting a discussion at the gastropod project might be the best approach.   Jts1882 | talk  17:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you biologist? Do you have a degree in biology? Are you good in editing templates? Why are you interested in gastropods? Are you just learning new things on Wikipedia or do you have any special interest in gastropods? Did you write or edit some gastropods articles already? Have you read User:Snek01/Guideline for WikiProject Gastropods? Are you interested in writing Did you know... articles? Those are few of many questions which could be useful for fruitful cooperation. They are usually better for normal discussion with questions followed by answers. And last but not least it would be better for me to understand you easier in chat. I have already planned a task for you, but I do not know if it will suits you. So? --Snek01 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lots of questions in there. I'll start with a few of them.

Am I a biologist?. My degrees are in biochemistry and my academic research has mostly been in cellular signalling and membrane biophysics. On Wikipedia I steer clear of these areas and prefer general biology, especially the evolution and classification of biological organisms. The huge diversity of life and how it evolved has always fascinated me and is what drew me to biology in the first place, before I specialised.

Can I edit templates?. A substantial part of my contributions to Wikipedia have been in this area. My first large task was rewriting the {{clade}} template (for the phylogenitic trees) as a Lua module and I have made a number of developments to the system. I have also written some citation templates for (e.g. a series for catalog of fishes) and some sports related templates, including a mapping template for football stadia that gets data from Wikidata.

Am I interested in Gastropods? My interest is in general classification and phylogeny I tend to look at various parts of the tree of life at different times. This is what got me interested in the clade template system a lot of my edits are updating and modifying phylogenetic trees. A few months ago it was molluscs and gastropods. I do like looking at older classifications to see how our knowledge has evolved so was interested to see the historical classifications of gastropods as separate articles with comparisons. This is why I read a bit more and looked at the series of papers by Bouchet on gastropods and other molluscs.

Now I will stop for coffee.   Jts1882 | talk  09:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you play chess? That would be completely anonymous for you if we could discuss during the chess match. --Snek01 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No more. I used to play a lot in school but have rarely played since. I lost interest when it got to the point I need to learn standard openings and counters to become a better player. I always did better in the more free form middle of the game rather than in the openings and end games.   Jts1882 | talk  09:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes. I think, that it is necessary. Get me at https://www.chess.com/member/snek01 You can not lose the game under such circumstances. You can only win while you will get in effective way informations, opinions, experiences and suggestions that could possibly help to the Wikiproject and to the Wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, as I noted at Template talk:Virusbox, there are currently major changes needed to make Virusbox work properly. Thinking about it overnight, there seem to be two lines of attack:

1. Leave Virusbox as the template to use for all viruses, but alter it to drive {{Taxobox/core}} in the way that all the other automated taxobox templates do (i.e. using Module:Autotaxobox to traverse the taxonomic hierarchy). The main issue is adding support for italicizing all ranks below Virus group for viruses. However, Virusbox will be able to 'tell' Taxobox/core at the start that the taxon is a virus, which makes it easier.
2. Alter {{Automatic taxobox}} so that having determined that the taxon is a virus it then italicizes all ranks below Virus group (as you suggested elsewhere), keeping Virusbox for virus species, just as we have a separate Speciesbox for other species. I don't think it's sensible to try to alter Speciesbox to handle virus species, because the absence of binomials makes them so different.

On the whole, I favour (1) as the simplest to use. Also under (2), there would be few uses of Virusbox. I'm interested to know your thoughts. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I think the important step is using Module:Autotaxobox to traverse the taxonomy. Your point about Speciesbox is well taken, so keeping Virusbox for species makes sense. As the Wikipedia virus community is not generally using automatic taxoboxes at the moment I think using Virusbox for all viruses (option 1) should make it simpler and facilitate the transition.   Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk moved to Module talk:SportsRankings#Updating data

Thanks for your additional examples. "Paeonia (Paeonia) daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii" is an interesting case. The logic at Module:TaxonItalics|italicizeTaxonName assumes that connecting terms occur in particular places in the string to be italicized. It could look for connecting terms anywhere, but it seemed safer to be restrictive. Also this ensures that only names in the correct format are handled; I didn't want to italicize "Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii" as "Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii" (it comes out as Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii, which is hopefully a hint that something is wrong). I guess that connecting terms used in botanical names could never be used as genus names or specific epithets, so maybe not being so restrictive would be safe. On the other hand, a botanical name with a subgenus and infraspecific epithet is pretty uncommon. Um... What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:. As my edit says it was an improbable hypothetical example. Even if it existed I'm not sure that it would be wanted for the title and taxobox name, as its too long and the subgenus name is optional. I was just trying to think of awkward cases that might suggest more generally useful changes. For instance, not italicising a recognised connecting term if it is in the (second last position) AND (third position or later) might work. Overall, I think this just complicates matters unless there is a clear formula, but now is the time to try and think of wierd cases. You probably won't want to be revisiting this.   Jts1882 | talk  18:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It's endlessly surprising to me how many weird cases actually exist on Wikipedia! A different issue, I know, but I would not have expected to find ~3,900 pages at Category:Speciesboxes with genus parameter without species parameter when it seems to me blindingly obvious that a taxobox for a species should contain a parameter for the species if there's one for the genus. A check I recently added to taxonomy template processing showed up half a dozen or so taxonomy templates with no parent, so the taxobox that used them stopped half-way up the classification hierarchy, without anyone apparently noticing for years.

Anyway, let's agree for now that this is a nice example that helps to define the limits of what is handled by Module:TaxonItalics. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk moved to Module talk:SportsRankings#Is the SportsRankings module it ready?

Talk moved to Module talk:Goalscorers#Module idea.

That was suppose to say Southern League is their first league trophy... Govvy (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:. I wasn't sure how to change it as it is clear the first substantial trophy. I thought there were some minor local leagues and cups, but I think I was wrong. Several runners-up and a reserve team win, but the other wins were later. On checking A Romance of Football does say {tq|[f]or the first time in its history the Spurs first team won a trophy}} so perhaps my edit should be changed back and the reference added. My mistake.   Jts1882 | talk  09:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've been tidying up Module:Autotaxobox, and fixing the documentation, both at the module and at WP:Automated taxobox system/map. I think I've converted almost all the templates I want to convert to Lua now; those that are concerned with configuration I think are best left as they are, so editors don't need to change the module, and those that are mainly concerned with layout are easier to understand if left as template code.

I've also fixed {{Infraspeciesbox}} for the authority display. It should, in my view, never be needed, since displaying authorities above the target taxon is intended to be used only for the sole taxon in a monotypic taxon, and by definition, there aren't such taxa at an infraspecific rank. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I've being following your changes to the autotaxobox module and templates. I think you've got rid of the more opaque template chains that make working out what was being done so difficult. It's far easier to follow now. The offset for the parent authorities simplifies things, although I hadn't realised they weren't used apart from in {{automatic taxobox}}. There seem to be a number of other parameters that are rarely or never used in the species and below level templates.   Jts1882 | talk  13:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The authorities would be needed in a Speciesbox for a monospecific genus needing disambiguation. I've forgotten to say that I haven't fixed the offset in |display-parents= yet. I'll have limited internet access for a few days. I think the next simplification is to study what parameters are actually used or needed in the automated taxoboxes and then simplify. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As per my comment above ("the next simplification is to study what parameters are actually used or needed in the automated taxoboxes"), I was thinking ahead to the next steps. Looking again at Module:Biota Infobox (which, by the way, should be called "Biota infobox", I think, to match the usual WP naming convention), there's a lot of complexity caused by the inconsistencies and peculiarities of the different taxobox templates. If these were tidied up, at least some templates could be merged: {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}} should be able to get enough information from the taxon name to deal with the rank difference; {{Virusbox}} shouldn't need to be separate either.

So my feeling is that we should continue to work on tidying up the taxobox templates, and only afterwards replace {{Taxobox/core}} by Module:Biota Infobox, which would then be much cleaner and easier to maintain. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have recently reorganised Module:Biota Infobox in my sandbox version, Module:Sandbox/Jts1882/Biota Infobox so it is more compliant with the current organisation of templates. I've separated out the parameter checking functions and core functions into submodules, which should be able to be used seperately. In principle it should be possible to use #invoke:Biota infobox/core|main}} instead of {{taxobox/core}} from the automatic taxobox templates or to use the template core from my functions that emulate the different automatic taxobox templates. I felt this would enable testing different parts better.

The parameter checking functions (Module:Sandbox/Jts1882/Biota Infobox/param) may be useful for the next step. They are now divided so that there are several steps:

• basic checking (get the parameters, alias any spaces to undescores, accept if it has a value (except for extinct which can be empty));
• alias checking against a list of aliases (e.g. color_as, colour_as);
• valid parameter checking against lists of parameters currently used by the individual automatic taxobox system templates (obtained using {{Parameters}}); a table of invalid parameters is also generated; and
• some additional function checking for setting tracking categories (e.g. are there manual taxobox taxon parameters set, are there both taxon and genus+species set?).
• (the check lists are in Module:Sandbox/Jts1882/Biota Infobox/data)).

It should be possible to invoke this parameter checking at the end of {{automatic taxobox}}, where you now set the tracking category for the binomials, and use it to help clean up the parameters in use and setting tracking categories more specifically. It would do this independently of the display of taxoboxes which would continue to use existing code.   Jts1882 | talk  10:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:. See {{Automatic taxobox/sandbox3}}. This uses the parameter submodule to add tracking categories for unrecognised parameters (not in approved automatic taxobox list, e.g. |dummy=), manual taxobox parameters (e.g.|ordo=) or orphaned parameters (e.g. |image2_caption= without |image2=).   Jts1882 | talk  14:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would be useful now to invoke Biota Infobox/param in the live versions of {{Automatic taxobox}} and even more so in {{Speciesbox}}. Module:Sandbox/Jts1882/Biota Infobox/param would need to be moved to Module:Biota Infobox/param first, I think, since I've had negative comments when I linked to a sandbox version from a live one. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A discussion on what parameter checking categories are useful would be a first step. Are the one's I've chosen suitable? (Incidentally, I hadn't realised they would be created automatically) I put in a few test categories based on various discussions I had seen, usually between you and User:Plantdrew, hence the orphaned parameter category and manual taxobox parameter categories. There is also a Category:Automatic taxobox with unsupported parameters which checks against the list of parameters supposed to be used by {{automatic taxobox}} according to {{Parameters}}. This includes a lot of parameters that are unused, unnecessary or unwanted (see params.validList.automatictaxobox {}) in Module:Sandbox/Jts1882/Biota_Infobox/data; e.g. the binomial3/4 and range_map3/4 parameters). This list and its sisters for speciesbox etc should be trimmed so these can be flagged. Then there are specific parameter combination test like the genus without species and vice versa in speciesbox (which could dealt with earlier). Subspeciesbox and infraspeciesbox could have similar checks.   Jts1882 | talk  17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the categories were created by BrownHairedGirl, not automatically.

My inclination would be to use only a small number of categories in the first instance, in particular just one each for unsupported and orphaned. Then we can see whether it's worth making finer distinctions (although we've seen before how much clean-up there is when error-tracking is turned on). Later we can look deeper. However, it would be good to have some input from Plantdrew, because he looks at articles' taxoboxes more than anyone, afaik. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for the ping. I created the tracking categories to remove them from the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. Per WP:REDNOT, a page in a red-linked category is an error, and some template here was doing that. I have no view on which tracking categories are appropriate ... but if a template starts populating them, then either the a) categories should be created or b) the template changed.

If any these tracking cats are no longer wanted, just alter the templates as required and tag the redundant tracking cats with {{db-empty}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What I'm seeing looks like a good step in the right direction; categories in the parameter check module are suitable. Agree with Peter to use a smaller number of categories covering multiple parameter issues in each category. Unsupported parameters already show up in the monthly template data error report, and I've been dealing with them, so there should be hardly in automatic taxoboxes (there are still unsupported parameters in manual taxoboxes since my preference at this point is to fix them in the process of converting to automatic taxoboxes). Well, actually there are unsupported parameters in automatic taxoboxes, they just have no value specified (there's something like 2,000 instances of |image_size= in Speciesboxes); not sure if valueless parameters would get caught in your checks. The check for orphaned parameters should include those dependent on |status=/|status2=: e.g., |status_system=, |status_ref= (and maybe also |type_species_authority=/|type_genus_authority=?).

Additional orphaned parameters noted. I'll move the list to the data module so it can be updated away from the code. I'll add them then.

Valueless parameters are checked for, but just ignored (except for |extinct=). I can add a category for this or include it in a general one.

Is it worth retaining aliases with spaces instead of underscores (or UK vs. US spellings of color/colour)? They're entirely unused in automatic taxoboxes, and hardly used in manual taxoboxes (OK, there is one editor who is currently adding range maps to bird articles using |range map=, and every month a few spaced parameters show up in automatic taxoboxes that were just converted from manual).

This is just one line of code with little overhead so keeps things compatible with manual taxobox. But the check can be excluded from autotaxobox checks.

I can go through the parameter lists in more detail, but will comment on a couple now. |trend= doesn't do anything and is only used in a handful of manual taxoboxes; eliminate it. |image_caption_align= isn't used anywhere; eliminate. It wouldn't take me long at all to switch all instance of |variety= over to |varietas=, so I don't think an alias needs to be maintained. |image_width= could soon be eliminated from the automatic family; it's only present in Speciesboxes with no value, and I've made some progress over the last week removing it from Automatic taxoboxes (I could easily get rid of it entirely in a month). Plantdrew (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Those lists can be trimmed drastically. The spaces versions aren't need whether they are kept as aliases or not. I'm not sure how they are compiled (I used {{Parameters}} to generate the list), but I wanted to start with the most inclusive list. There was at least one omission, so that's something else to check.

@Plantdrew and Peter coxhead: I've put a some comments on Plantdrew's suggestions above.

I've moved the module to Module:Biota infobox to follow naming conventiosn. I'm glad I had the template delays and use of null edits explained. I'll put the parameter subpage there when I've made the changes for the suggestions above.   Jts1882 | talk  10:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I've now entirely eliminated instances of |image_width= from Automatic Taxoboxes; it is still present in some Speciesboxes with no value specified. While I'm sure it will show up some in the future as taxoboxes are converted from manual to auto, I don't think it's something that auto taxoboxes need to support going forward. Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: well, a good first step would be to remove all occurrences of image_width from {{Taxobox/core}} which all the taxoboxes currently use. Then even if it's still present in a call to {{Speciesbox}}, it will have no effect. Unless there's something you can see that I've missed, I'll do this. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, I removed it from auto taxoboxes, the parameter is still being used in ~10% of manual taxoboxes, and is presumably doing something useful in at least a few cases. So I guess it should stay in Taxobox/core. If there's no easy way to disable it solely in automatic taxoboxes, it's not a big deal. Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: ok. It should really be removed from those manual taxoboxes, but that's a big task. My plan (endorsed by Jts1882) is to convert the automated taxobox templates to Lua, step by step. I've done one of the less-used ones, {{Virusbox}} (which showed me, if I didn't already know it, how much easier it makes it to deal with issues like automatic italicization). {{Virusbox}} ignores the image width parameters, and when the others are converted, they will do the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:. There are almost 23,000 uses of |image_width= with {{Taxobox}} and only 205 uses of |image_upright=. The most common settings are 200px (4163, the default taxobox width), 240px (5618), 250px (5394), and 300px (2039). None use higher than 300px and only around 900 less than 200px. The 638 at 100px might be useful if used for low resolution images. The others make the images slightly larger, but this probably isn't critical for the images in most cases (it might matter if there are collages using image maps). In many cases it might just been a means of making the taxobox wider for better display of taxa with long names and/or authorities (e.g. in the subdivision section).

As Plantdrew has removed |image_width= and |image2_width= from the automatic taxoboxes, it might be time to stop passing the parameters to the core. That should discourage their use.   Jts1882 | talk  10:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I'm working on converting {{Automatic taxobox}} to Lua at present. As ever, this throws up various oddities in the coding and use of the template, which are slowing me down. Assuming I get a functioning Lua version, it won't pass on the "image_width" parameters. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've only just realized that you don't have template editor status. You can ask yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor or I'll do it for you. With the work you've done on Module:Clade for example, it should be obvious that you understand what you are doing. (And, selfishly, I don't want to be the only editor responsible for maintaining the automated taxobox system, which I almost seem to be at present.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I had noted that I have the strange status where I can edit the clade module but not the template that calls it. It hasn't been a major problem as I run any major changes past you anyway, but does mean more for you to do. I think it would be helpful to get template editor rights. Then I can help you with the taxooxes and it would also be useful on some football-related templates where I help out sometimes. I don't know if administrator requests are a good guide, but they seem to consider self requests negatively so it might be better for you to make the request.

Ok, will do (later). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That reminds me that I have made some further changes to the clade module so it uses CSS more. The default border is now handled in CSS (which greatly reduced the size of large phylogenies). Can you have a look at the examples in User:Jts1882/sandbox/test/cladex (they all use cladeN despite the page name) on an Apple device to see if they appear in the normal iOS way. It's standard CSS so shouldn't be an issue, but this is one thing I can't check.

The CSS version also allows a reverse clade option to be integrated seemlessly. I think this would be useful sometimes for showing alternative phlogenies (e.g. in User:Jts1882/sandbox/test/cladeR.   Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

All cladograms look dreadful to me on Safari-type browsers, but other than this browser difference, all look ok under Firefox, Opera and Safari on a MacBook and under Safari in both desktop and mobile views on an iPad. The mobile view never works well with wide images or diagrams, but that's an inherent problem. I assume that it's intentional that in the last cladogram (root Tetrapodomorpha) the first purple shading is full width (i.e. as wide as "grouplabel1") unlike all the shadings underneath. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that Safari still handles html tables differently. But if the appearance is the same as the current {{clade}} version, I can update the release version. I can't edit the {{clade/styles.css}} but I can put it in styles2.css and make the change using that now the styles template is set in the module. I can then formally ask you to copy it to styles.css using a template edit request (see Tom Redings's advice on template editor rights below).

The full width purple shading was not intentional, just inevitable the way the html tables are handled. I was just trying various ideas for labels and bars on the right. Grouplabel works with bar/barbegin/barend, but its tricky and not ideal. It actually works nicely with reverse clade to add an alternative topology.   Jts1882 | talk  17:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI ~ the TE request process assumes you are making a self-request, and requesting someone else would look a bit odd, possibly raising more questions than it's worth. It would be better for those supporting your TE would chime in below it. If you meet all the standard guidelines, that shouldn't be necessary anyway. As far as guideline #6 goes, you might be able to point to communications with Peter to count towards that. Just to be safe, I would formalize your next few requests (if you're lacking).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page stalking is good. I've learnt a lot watching various talk pages, yours included.

Thanks for that advice. I don't quite pass #5 and #6 as I normally don't make the edit request formally and just participate in the discussions. But I can work on that. You'd think hundreds of edits on the sandbox of the module running a protected template would count for something.   Jts1882 | talk  17:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, when I've made a significant number of edits for an editor in the past, I have requested the right for them and been successful. Actually, I now remember that it was page moves and page mover rights. Anyway, regardless of the formal criteria, I would strongly back your application. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

To use the current virus taxonomy, Torque teno sus virus needs a taxobox starting:

{{Paraphyletic group
| color_as = Virus
| image = 
| image_alt = 
| image_caption = 
| unranked_domain = [[Virus]]
| phylum = [[incertae sedis]]
| classis = [[incertae sedis]]
| ordo = [[incertae sedis]]
| familia = ''[[Anelloviridae]]''

However, {{Paraphyletic group}}/Module:Biota infobox doesn't seem to pass on |color_as=, and without it, there's nothing to set the taxobox colour because "Virus group" isn't used now according to the consensus at WikiProject Viruses. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For some obscure reason I only handled colour_as for automatic taxonomy cases. I've now added handling for |color_as= but not the other aliases. I need to update the module to the sandbox version with all the parameter checking and aliasing, which will simplify the coding. The color options for manual taxobox emulation is incomplete so I need to have another look at that.

Alternatively, just add |auto= (leave it blank) and it will use the automatic taxonomy system.   Jts1882 | talk  16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Torque teno sus virus now has a functioning up-to-date taxobox. (Remember that traditionally in taxoboxes a blank value for a parameter means no/false, so |auto=yes would be better.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you have participated in the discussion of revising the primary source for primate taxonomy, I wanted to let you know that a new source has been suggested, the mammal diversity database. Right now I think the 2 main contenders are this and ITIS. Please share any thoughts you have on the discussion on the Primate Project Talk Page. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for three things: first, assuming that my edits are good faith; second, your detailed explanation of why you reverted two of my edits; and third, your civility. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: Equally, thanks for taking my changes with good grace. We are all (with a few exceptions) trying to improve the articles and too often people get proprietary over parts of the articles they have written. We have to remember that people come to the articles with different mixes of enthusiasm, expertise and writting skills. We should all expect our edits to be changed and help ensure that the changes are for the better. Clear and detailed edit summaries help. Silly edit wars like a recent one at Dingo are a waste of time.   Jts1882 | talk  15:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more! I recently had 32 edits reverted with 1 click. The reason given: "not an improvement" (!). IiKkEe (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

the one on the left is gracile. What do I win if I'm right? I've been meaning to say hello. Still trying to guess at the letters and numbers in your tag, but haven't yet confounded you another user. I agree, btw, about recognising the value in things like Adl et al, in that they are immediately usable as secondary references to earlier proposals. I'm finding this beautifully demonstrated in a poorly understood group that I am working on, and the way in which workers built on the earlier literature to formulate a slightly clearer understanding over the course of investigations. Blah, blah, anyway, hello! cygnis insignis 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the caption at Pan the bonobo is on the right.

Guessing meaning of the letters and numbers in my user name might take some time. They aren't my initials or birth date. The first internet forums I participated in were football ones and the name can be traced back to that. The name I used was based on the name of the then manager of the football club I support, but as managers kept getting fired, changing the name and keeping some continuity became impossible. I decided to take the initials of the original name and add the foundation date of the football club and have used that name widely on the internet since then. I wish I had chosen something else for Wikipedia, but it is too late now.

I have long considered the strict distinction between primary and secondary references at Wikipedia to be problematic especially for scientific papers and even moreso for taxonomy papers. Some of the best reviews of the taxonomic literature can be found in introductions to new proposals. I enjoy reading the historical accounts and how the classification schemes have changed over time.   Jts1882 | talk  16:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, then I hope I was wrong in my guess. I'll get back to reading through what Peter has presented. Regards, cygnis insignis 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the distinction in WP:PSTS is wrong for many if not most scientific topics, at least as it is customarily interpreted. It's not the medium (e.g. journal paper) that determines what is primary or secondary, but the content. A good example is monographs published as long journal articles. These often contain by far the most authoritative review of the taxonomic literature. Many editors have been saying all this for a long time, but it seems to have no impact. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Also @Plantdrew:) So far no actual responses to the choice I posed at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Alternatives. It was clear to me from the discussion at WT:TOL that people didn't understand the issue, so I hoped that by giving diagrams and a long text explanation it would be clear, but it seems not. Sigh... (I seem completely unable to communicate what I mean to one editor.)

So I'll respond to your question here. I don't think that skip templates ever work properly to deal with inconsistent ranks or classifications. As far as I know, they were introduced to reduce the depth of the taxonomic hierarchy when processing was coded in the template language, and all kinds of tricks were needed to cope with the depth used for some groups, particularly dinosaurs. (I believe that Smith609, the originator of the system, envisaged the system as mainly using Linnaean ranks, not multitudes of clades.) Once they existed, skip templates were pressed into service to jump over inconsistent ranks. It's hard to know where to put the skip, because unlike my nicely limited examples in the figures I drew, the real hierarchies are deep and branched.

I don't think skip templates should be needed at all now. If no-one makes any useful comments, I will implement my version (4), I think, and then all the skips in the bird/mammal/dinosaur hierarchy can be removed. The remaining issues will be:

• Will there have to be variant systems in this set of classifications, as per the "/Plantae" one I hastily implemented yesterday? (It needs some tidying.)
• Is there a need for something less crude than the all-or-nothing of |always_display=? If so, how would it work; how could some clades be displayed for some target taxa and not for others? (Other than by using variant taxonomy templates.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't really help yesterday. I pointed out the specific issue you were concerned about, but then went on to make a tangential comment, which was more thinking aloud than offering solutions. I will try and address your specific questions on inconsitent ranks later today.

I liked the "plantae" variant path example. I was a bit surprised I hadn't seen that before, so it's reassuring to know that you added it yesterday. I hadn't realised such variants path could be set up like that. One concern is that if there were lots of variant paths the system would get more difficult to follow. I wonder if there is a way of keeping one heirarchical ladder in the taxonomy templates and marking the paths within the ladder. Perhaps a |path=plantae to indicate that a rank should be shown under certain conditions. How this would be initiated and handle skips needs some thought.

Yes, I've been thinking both about dealing better with inconsistent ranks and with variant systems. One idea I had for the latter is, I think, somewhat similar to yours above. When the Lua code in Module:Autotaxobox sees a template with a qualified taxonomy template, like "/Plantae", it sets the variable mode. From then on upwards, every time the system looks for a parent, it first looks for "Template:Taxonomy/parent/mode". If this exists, it follows it, if not it follows "Template:Taxonomy/parent". One advantage of this approach is that it would allow a move away from the 'plain' hierarchy, a return to it, and then another move away. This isn't possible with the system at present: once it rejoins the 'plain' path, it is stuck there.

However, there could be problem. Checking for the existence of a page is an expensive operation and only so many are allowed each time a page is expanded. Although the limit of 500 seems generous (and one of the deepest hierarchies, the one used at Felis, only gives 7/500), I'm concerned that potentially adding 100 extra 'exists' checks would not be viewed as desirable. Earlier, as far as I can make out (I wasn't around then), there was something of an 'arms race' between the developers of the template language-based automated taxobox system and those in charge of the WikiMedia software: the former kept pushing up the required expansion depth; the latter reduced it; the former came up with ingenious ways of just keeping within the limits; ... Ultimately the latter won, and only skip templates, with all their problems, kept the system working. I wouldn't like to start this process again with expensive parser calls. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:. The template language #ifexist is expensive, but in Lua you can use frame:expandTemplate() and check the result. The Lua reference manual doesn't say this is expensive and it generally warns about expensive functions (e.g. mw.title.new()).   Jts1882 | talk  18:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what Module:Autotaxobox does. However, there are two ways of doing it: a direct use of frame:expandTemplate(), and pcall(frame.expandTemplate, ...). pcall() prevents an error termination and returns a value to show whether an error has occurred, making it easier to tell whether a template exists. I had the impression from somewhere that pcall(frame.expandTemplate, ...) was expensive, but I must have mis-remembered, because it's not in the manual and when I look at the page source for Module talk:Autotaxobox/testcases, the expensive parser function count is 1/500. So this means that the idea of selecting a path based on some kind of mode or path variable is a possible approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A bit of flexibility in |always_display= would be useful. The suggestion I made yesterday was effectively for a |always_display=sometimes depending on the number of taxa already displayed below the taxon in question. For instance superclass Tetrapod could be displayed if 3 or less taxa were displayed. Thus it would display for bird (class Aves, clade Ornithurae; 2 taxa displayed) or Neoaves (clade Neoaves, infraclass Neognathae, class Aves; N=3) but not for lower bird taxa. The problem is determining rules that apply generally and not just with bird, which is one reason I asked for more examples of skip templates in action. I'll give some more thought to this and the path idea and see if I can come up with something more coherent.   Jts1882 | talk  07:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This could certainly be made to work: just count up the number of taxa displayed as you work upwards creating the automated taxobox, and then apply the rule. I'd be very reluctant to allow the critical number to be changed in a taxonomy template, because I think this would make the system very unpredictable. So, yes, if we could agree on a number, it would work. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

importScript('User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js');

	res = res .. ':||<span style="white-space:nowrap;">' .. link .. '</span>' 
	.. '||<span style="font-size:smaller;">' .. qualifier  .. '</span>' 
	.. '||<span style="white-space:nowrap;">'  .. frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'Template:Edit a taxon/sandbox', args = { taxon } } .. '</span>\n|-'

I realized some time ago that there's an issue when the name of the taxonomy template and the link text don't "match" – in particular it messes up italicization. It was deeply embedded in the design of the automated taxobox system from the start that the taxon name used was obtained from the template name. I think that |link= may have originally been intended to be used only to provide a different link target.

I wanted to see how many such cases existed and what kind they were, so I set up Category:Taxonomy templates with different name and link text, initially with very weak rules as to what constituted "different". They are much stronger now, so most of the templates in the category will disappear with time (or a null edit). If you look at my recent contributions, you'll see that I've got bogged down fixing the surprising number of taxonomy templates where the link text is wrong. (The reason why I haven't responded to your great work on displaying the taxonomic hierarchy in taxonomy templates.) There are several main issues:

1. Typos: the link text and the template name are spelt differently suggesting a typo rather than a deliberate choice.
2. Taxonomic changes: editors have dealt with a change in name by just changing the link text, leaving the template at the old name. This messes up italicization, among other issues.
3. Extinction handled by putting |link=TAXON|†TAXON with |extinct= left blank. This messes up tracking consistency of extinction status.
4. Setting |link= just to the disambiguated name, which then shows up in the taxobox, e.g. as "GENUS (plant)".
5. Link parameter omitted; the default is then to use the template name, but this will be wrong if it is disambiguated, which again causes the disambiguation to show up in the taxobox.

All of these except (3) can cause the taxobox to be wrong, but editors don't seem to have noticed this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Did you see : someone prepared a DUPLICATE of the Felidae page at List of felines with almost identical text. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed. The table in the list article is new and potentially a good addition, but there are a couple of issues. As you say the lede is essentially a compilation of unattributed copies from the Felidae page. The second issue is use of feline in the broader sense for all (or all extant) felids. I think these list articles have some value (e.g. see List of fruit bats) so I think it is reasonable to use as a {{see also}} hatnote for extant felids in the main article, but with a pipe so the hatnote says felids (there might already be a suitable redirect).   Jts1882 | talk  13:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the attribution; I've added a null edit to note such. As to the use of "felines" to refer to the whole family: I asked before publishing at WP:ANIMALS but got no response, and no one corrected me on the WP:DISCORD wp biology channel either. I went with felines as it sounded better to my ear and Felidae states that either feline or felid is acceptable- is "felid" more correct? Or is it just that most families don't get an "-ine" suffix for groups? I'm new to editing in the taxonomy area, so I apologize for any errors. --PresN 04:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A feline is a member of the Felinae, hence not a pantherine, whereas felid includes both Felinae and Pantherine cats. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@PresN and BhagyaMani: Felid is a more precise term as it unambiguously refers to the whole family. Feline is ambiguous as it is used both more generally as a synonym of felid and also more narrowly for the Felinae. In common English the broader term is probably what most people understand. In scientific writing the Felinae are usually treated as a subfamily, distinct from pantherines, especially by people who work on extant cats, but some working on extinct animals use Felinae for conical-toothed cats (to exclusion of sabre-tooths) and use Felini and Pantherini as tribes within Felinae. In this sense felines covers all living cats.

As a general point, "-id" suffix is used for members of the family, because the suffix "-idae" is used for zoological families, and the "-ine" suffix is used for subfamilies ("inae"), e.g. canids, canines, mustids, bovines, equids, etc. Tribles and subtribes use "-ini" and "ina", while superfamilies get "-oidea".   Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jts1882! I see we both understand the terms alike. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One thing I've been meaning to raise is the use of tribe Felini. Someone has been adding it to refer to the inner four lineages, which doesn't match any published source I have seen. There is a document floating around the internet since about 2009 that gives tribe names to most of the lineages, e.g. Acinonychini for the puma lineage. There is a certain logic to the names, but I haven't seen it published and I search extensively a couple of years ago.   Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed your display_parents = 6 parameter from Aiteng ater. In general, this parameter is only to be used when a taxon is identical in scope to an ancestor taxon, in order to guarantee that the lowest non-identical taxon shows. If anything higher needs to show, then it should for all pages which are part of the taxon in question; in this case, please edit that taxon's template and add the line |always_display=yes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: No problem. I made that change following discussion on one of the taxobox talk pages (sorry, I forget which). The gastropod editors felt that subterclass and superfamily should be displayed, but others argued that |always_display=yes should be used sparingly. I generally agree that using |display_parents=6 is brute force and ends up displaying unnecessary taxa. Btw, I don't follow your argument on use of |display_parents= for taxa "identical in scope to an ancestor taxon".   Jts1882 | talk  12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To take a practical example: the Dhole is the only species in its genus, "Cuon". This genus is in a tribe. In order that the {{speciesbox}} for Dhole will list the tribe, we correctly use display_parents=2. This ensures that a user who views the Dhole article can navigate to the immediate parent of the top taxon which the page "Dhole" represents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is that in the taxobox for a taxon, we only force the display of the minor ranks between that taxon and the one above that is always displayed. So a tribe might be displayed for a genus since tribe is between genus and family, but not for a species. Similarly a superfamily might be displayed for a family but not for a genus. There can always be exceptional cases, but they should be exceptions. Taxoboxes are there to summarize, like all infoboxes, not to show the complete classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I implemented this change as part of the subterclass discussion with gastropods. I think this was your suggestion.   Jts1882 | talk  16:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 23:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent – and overdue! (Thanks, Xaosflux.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ansar

Nejmeh

Safa

Ahed

Bourj

Shabab Bourj

Shabab Sahel

Locations of teams Beirut

Hi, thanks for helping me out! The problem is that, instead of symbols, I would like the text of the club to be displayed. Also, in Lebanon, many teams at the moment use various stadiums throughout the season (meaning that my aim isn't to represent the stadium itself, rather the location of where the team is based). In short, I would just like something similar to the Beirut map in the league season page with Ahed, Bourj, Shahab Bourj and Shabab Sahel (all teams from the Beirut suburbs) included into a map, along with Nejmeh, Safa and Ansar already included in the Beirut map. These are the coordinates:

• Ahed: 33.840547, 35.489771
• Bourj: 33.840829, 35.507033
• Shabab Bourj: 33.840829, 35.507033
• Shabab Sahel: 33.852019, 35.515375
• Nejmeh: 33.894444, 35.469444
• Safa: 33.874717, 35.491951
• Ansar: 33.873901, 35.498352

If anything is unclear please let me know. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Label

Unfortunately there isn't an option to put a label on these interactive maps (there should be). You are supposed to get the information by clicking on the symbol, which now you have to get from the full page (the temporary bug notwithstanding). Unfortunately the further development of the mapframe maps has been put on hold.

For what you want we need a suitable basemap as some locations are outside the area. I'll see if I can find something.   Jts1882 | talk  16:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried looking around but as for Beirut there is only the map I told you about. Also, there is no "defined area" for Greater Beirut (or the Beirut suburbs) so it we would have to subjectively put the limits (I looked for what cities are considered part of the Beirut suburbs area and the coordinates on OSM should be N: 33.9838, S: 33.7860, E: 35.6802, W: 35.4220). I would create the SVG map myself buy I have absolutely no idea how to. If you knew how please let me know, I'll try to do so myself. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: The interactive mapframe maps used by {{Football map}} or {{maplink}} would allow you to define the area. What is missing is a label. Would something like to map to the right be useful? The label is applied manually in the example, but I could add a label and label style parameter to the {{Football map}} template.   Jts1882 | talk  13:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I found the OSM Location map template and used that. Regardless, thanks for your help and availability! Nehme1499 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jts. I noticed your work on phylogenies in Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd be interested in submitting a Wikipedia article (or even just the phylogenies) for external, academic peer review.

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, they are a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Apologies for the late reply. I don't think the work I do on Wikipedia fits with this type of article peer review. I make a lot of minor changes to many articles dealing with taxonomy and phylogeny. My main efforts are with the templates and modules. I've started a few articles I felt were glaring omissions, but haven't taken any articles to GA or FA. There are other editors who spend most of their efforts on the latter and might have suitable articles.   Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all. One possibility if you decided you wanted to try something small would be to have one of the phylogenies peer reviewed (a bit like this and this figure review), especially where you have put together a consensus diagram. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jts1882,

In the function addAutomaticTaxonomyET, I saw the line

local autoTaxonomy = frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'taxobox/taxonomy', args = localArgs } 

However, Template:taxobox/taxonomy was deleted. Does that mean the function is currently wrong? Or is it a deadcode? Thanks! --Nullzero (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nullzero: Yes, that function is no longer used. If you look in function p.addAutomaticTaxonomy(), which adds the taxonomy section using the automated taxonomy system, it calls function taxoboxList(), which is part of Module:Autotaxobox. Earlier versions used the templates and then a modification of the autotaxobox module as there were some incompatibilities, now avoided. There have been a number of recent revisions to the handling of the automated taxoboxes that have led to many of the templates being discontinued.   Jts1882 | talk  06:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to remove the deadcode, then? In any case, thank you for your answer :) --Nullzero (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jts1882! Am not sure whether you have these two on your watchlist? The Explaner changed the cladograms there as well and added extinct species that are not part of the cladograms proposed in the published sources. Maybe we should have a closer look at their changes in other pages. Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC) PS: and Mongoose too. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching these pages and some others edited by The Expaner and a couple of IP editors (presumably the same person). I did leave a couple of comments about sources and edit summaries. A few observations:

• Most of the changes seem reasonable. This editor is clearly knowledgeable on the subject. The problem is lack of sources and explanation (sic).
• A lot of changes border on or cross the line on original research.
• Two much detail is added to the cladograms. We don't need all extinct species. The genus is often sufficient, e.g. for Stenogale on the Feliformia cladogram.
• The cladogram on Feliformia is an interesting one. The previous cladogram was poor and unsourced and it was in sore need of an update. The use of Feliformia, Aeluroidea and Feloidea makes sense, but needs a liberal interpretation of the literature. I've seen Aeluroidea excluding Nimravids, but I haven't beebn able to find the narrow Feloidea ouside Wikipedia (it's logical, but taxonomy has its own rules); its usually a synonym of Aeluroidea or Feliformia. The position of Stenoplesictidae and Percrocutidae is interesting and probably better than the position before, but again unsourced.
• Other pages to look at: Machairodontinae, Metailurini, Eupleridae, Pseudaelurus, Barbourofelidae, Homotherini, Nimravidae, various other saber-toothed cat pages.
• I like the common themes of the presentation across Feliform families.

So I'm not sure what to do. Overall the pages have been substantially improved, but some of the changes are beyond what is allowed by Wikipedia guidelines.   Jts1882 | talk  14:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my defense at my talk page !! :). The same person has posted the exactly same message at The Explaner's talk page. Apart from a single edit on the Viverridae page, I've not seen their contribution on any of the Felidae, mongoose etc. and related pages. So I suggest to not take their comment too seriously. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: Sorry, I wasn't aware the parentheses changed the meaning. The reason I changed it is that on mobile it appears as "Chlorophycophyta Papenfuss 1946" with no distinction in size, so it looks as though "Papenfuss 1946" (which is inside a <small> tag) is part of the name. Obviously anyone with half a brain can see it isn't, but it's nonetheless bad style. The {{small}} template seems to actually work on mobile, so please use that instead. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude:. No problem. I understood why you made the change and that is why I explained it fully. I've asked a question on the plant project page asking if there is an alternative way of distinguishing the taxon and authority (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Taxon_authors_citations,_small_tag_and_mobiles). The {{small}} template might be the answer or a custom one for taxon authorities. With the increasing use of mobiles for web browsing it is good that these things are brought to our attention.   Jts1882 | talk  13:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, do you have an example of when this edit makes a difference? It seem to me that it must be a failure of the rest of the "bolding logic" if it does. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I thought I had in the Gymnorhadinorhynchus example. Now you are asking, I assume that it was your change to the taxonomy template that was the difference.   Jts1882 | talk  15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts my logic is wrong as the page title isn't the taxon. It appeared to work because of the timing of our edits. I'll revert it.   Jts1882 | talk  15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Dealing with all the fringe cases involving differences between the article title and the taxon name (common names, monotypic taxa handled in articles at a variety of ranks above/below the taxon, disambiguated taxon names, common names being the same as the genus name [like rhododendron], etc.) turned out to be very difficult to get my head round, and I know that there are still a few cases where {{Speciesbox}} gets the italicizing wrong, but I thought the bolding was ok.

The real problem in my view is that the Wikimedia software doesn't embolden self-links via redirects, necessitating things like |link=Gymnorhadinorhynchus|Gymnorhadinorhynchidae which are undesirable because (1) editors don't know or forget the need for the link and the link text, and (2) when articles get moved, such as to English names or because taxa become no longer monotypic, it's not obvious that |link= in the taxonomy template needs to be updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:. I'm not sure the extra overhead is worth it, but I think the following code (or something close to it) will flag bold for redirects if placed where I made the edit yesterday.   Jts1882 | talk  08:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

	local title = mw.title.new( taxon, 0 )	                 -- taxon would be family name in yesterdays example
	if title.isRedirect then                                 -- if a redirect, get the target
		local target = title.redirectTarget                  -- target is the genus name
		if frame:getTitle() == tostring(target) then  bold = 'yes' end
	end

Like you, I'm not sure that the overhead is worth it, but it's worth considering. Another possibility that occurred to me is to flag up (by a tracking category) taxonomy templates where the link target is a redirect, as is currently done for other 'anomalies' in taxonomy templates. As taxonomy templates are viewed less often than articles, any overhead is less of a concern, and this would allow corrections not just where the link text is missing, but where the link target is a redirect even though the link text is present. Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: That might be better. The isRedirect property is expensive. My understanding is that it will increment the expensive function count each time a title object for another page is requested, which means it will only be checked for each displayed taxon in the taxobox. This shouldn't be a major problem, as I think the limit is 500 per page, but will be a lot of calls across all automated taxoboxes. This issue doesn't come up very often so a category set when editing the taxonomy templates would be more efficient and not too much work for editors. Having the redirects in the taxonomy templates has the advantage of showing the final targets.   Jts1882 | talk  15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering, is there any way we can map the different time depths assumed by Starostin in the cladogram? –Austronesier (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: There is no way of controlling the length of branches. These cladograms are just complicated nested HTML tables and the web browser does the rendering on the page. Something we sometimes do with biological species cladograms is the add the time on or under the branch using |label= or |sublabel=. I'll make an edit to demostrate.   Jts1882 | talk  16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: well, there are things that editors sometimes do, which I regard as somewhat problematic. Compare these two:

In the second, |label1= has non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) to increase the length of the B line. But as Jts1882 notes above, because the layout is controlled by the way the browser lays out tables, there are severe limits on what you can achieve, and the C line is automatically lengthened too. If line length really matters, then you'll have to draw a diagram. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Jts1882, Peter coxhead for your suggestions! I have experimented a bit, and solved it by moving Austro-Tai down by one taxonomic level in order to separate the levels of bifurcation, plus doing the non-breaking spaces-trick.

I'll check first how this will come out in different views (PC, mobile etc.), before taking it to the Austric page. –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: the key test, as noted at Template:Clade#Browser differences, is with the two classes of browser. Safari still produces cladograms with a poor layout because of how it handles tables. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you see Skipp there? Govvy (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: No, that is why I added a reference to Friday's club announcement of squad numbers for 2019-20 season. It even singles out Oliver Skipp for special mention.   Jts1882 | talk  13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

hmm, I tend to stay away from the fringe academy players, otherwise squad lists can exploded to over 150 players. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: He isn't a fringe academy player. He's a full time player with 9 PL appearances and his number is within the first team range. I wouldn't add the other players with higher numbers yet, but Skipp already has an appearance this season. I think the best approach is to add the others when they make a PL or CL appearance.   Jts1882 | talk  15:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for updating the Taxonbar template with the Ecocrop link. Much appreciated. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. As you may remember. I changed the Bilateria article's phylogeny section such that the Philippe et al. (2019) hypothesis on obsolescence of Deuterostomia has its own little section, and added an emphasis saying that the authors themselves admit that it's too early to come to a consensus on this matter. However, I have discovered that these changes have been propagated on several other articles. These include Deuterostomia, Nephrozoa, the template for Animalia, and the template for Xenacoelomorpha. I have modified all of these such that the language is much more couched to reflect the lack of scientific consensus on the matter, or I reverted them to the previous versions. In all cases I have left my rationale.

However, the trouble is that these changes are spread all over the place, and it seems like I keep finding more of them as time passes. I don't want to play whack-a-mole on this matter. As such, is there some unified place that the Wiki community can get together and come to a consensus on all related changes? Should there be a Request for Comment in some unified place? It seems that it's really just one user who has made all these changes, plus a bunch of IP users. Maybe it would be good to get some fresh opinions on this matter. What do you think? BirdValiant (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: Yes, I agree this could do with broader discussion. The place to raise the issue would be one of the project pages. The obvious one is WP:ANIMALS but this tends to be quiet. I'd suggest WP:TOL as a better place for issues on taxonomy. As general point, the classifications used for higher taxa are an issue for all the main life projects where consensus phylogenetic trees are more appropriate than the latest published theory. A lot of these changes don't get referenced properly either.   Jts1882 | talk  06:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate having to actually start a formal Request for Comment, since there hasn't been any actual edit warring yet. However, at the same time, I would like there to be more people aware that these changes have been made to many articles, in case that more are made (or found) elsewhere in the future. I haven't worked with any Wikiprojects before, so how could I go about starting such a discussion? Does that go in the talk page of WP:TOL, or what? Do I just start a section somewhere? Thanks, BirdValiant (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jts1882,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chirixalus vittata for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to derail the discussion on the project page further with the details of this case. The Melzer et al. paper is behind a paywall for me, but from reading the abstract, I don't see how The Reptile Database's treatment of Oligosoma robinsonii is consistent with Melzer. Melzer says "Further taxonomic work will be required to determine the taxonomy of other speckled skink genetic lineages in the South Island, particularly O. aff. infrapunctatum “cobble”, O. “Hokitika”....". RD lists "Cobble skink" and "Hokitika skink" as common names for O. robinsonii, but doesn't include the provisional name "O. aff. infrapunctatum “cobble”" in the synonyms section (although the provisional name "Oligosoma aff. infrapunctatum “crenulate”" is listed). I also don't understand why RD has parentheses for (Wells and Wellington, 1985); I don't see any other combinations of robinsonii listed in the synonyms. If cobble skinks are O. robinsonii, the Wikipedia article should use the scientific name for the title since O. robinsonii is also the name for crenulate skinks. Maybe the full text of Melzer makes some of this clearer, but I'm pretty confused by what the Reptile Database has. Plantdrew (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I think you are right. There do seem to be some inconsistencies in Reptile Database, which also includes cobble skink as the common name of O. infrapunctatum (). I jumped to a conclusion based on Reptile Database entry for O. robinsonii and a cursory read of the Melzer paper, which I've now read more of. Their formal taxonomic description of O. robinsonii is restricted to the North Island, which means it can't correspond to the South Island cobble skink of Jewell & Morris (2007,2011), although they are placed in the same clade in the molecular phylogeny (and that of Greaves 2008). According to the critter of the week reference (which doesn't list its references), the Jewell & Morris (2007,2011) cobble skink is highly restricted at Granity on the South Island. There is further confusion in that the Granity crenulate skink of Jewell & Morris (2007,2011) is unrelated to O. robinsonii (also called a crenulate skink). The Melzer paper is supposedly part 1 of their study, so perhaps the second part will clarify things.

I'm going to revert my change to the cobble skink article (these skinks are too cryptic). There might be an issue with the article being only on the highly restricted Granity cobble skink as the name is used more widely by Reptile Database.   Jts1882 | talk  07:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Some background: New species discovered behind a pub – then saved from extinction.   Jts1882 | talk  08:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jts1882, there seems to be a problem with the display of the conservation status for Vulnerable (VU) species in both manual and automatic taxoboxes. Older classifications (IUCN 2.3) appear to work correctly. There has been no recent editing activity to the template:{{IUCN 3.1 navmap/VU}}. Can you help try and diagnose the problem? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Loopy30: What am I looking for? Can you give some example pages exhibiting the problem?   Jts1882 | talk  06:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Any of the articles listed on the pages linked from Vulnerable species, for example Niger stingray or Sierra de las Minas hidden salamander has the code for, but does not display, the classification status diagram in the taxobox. Other classification sytems such as IUCN2.3 (see Monterissa gowerensis) or ratings (EN, CR, etc) work fine (eg. White rhinoceros, Caspian gull). Loopy30 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Loopy30: I'm seeing the classification system in the taxobox. Niger stingray shows the vulnerable graphic, while Sierra de las Minas hidden salamander shows the blank one because it is data deficient (DD). I can't see any problem. Which raises the question, why are we seing different things?   Jts1882 | talk  11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, Sierra de las Minas hidden salamander was DD and a bad example. Do you see the conservation classification graphic for West African seahorse, Black lemur, or Bombus caliginosus? I will change browsers to see if that has any effect. Loopy30 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Loopy30: Yes, all look fine. I'm using Firefox in Windows 10. Desktop and mobile views both work.   Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, it is a browser issue. Chrome works for me but Safari did not. Loopy30 (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you use Inspect Element (or Safari equivalent) to see if the image is there and hidden or the code is missing?   Jts1882 | talk  11:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There is code for it. The applicable line seems to be <img alt="" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Status_iucn3.1_VU.svg/220px-Status_iucn3.1_VU.svg.png" decoding="async" width="220" height="59" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Status_iucn3.1_VU.svg/330px-Status_iucn3.1_VU.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Status_iucn3.1_VU.svg/440px-Status_iucn3.1_VU.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="240" data-file-height="64">

@Loopy30: So it looks like the image is inserted but not displayed for some reason. The two things I can think of are the CSS (check in Inspect Element to see if it is hidden) or possibly something to do with image caching (can you see the image on the right?).   Jts1882 | talk  15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The figure to the right on this page displays correctly on Chrome, but still not on Safari. This leads to questions such as: Is this a problem for all Safari users or just this particular laptop? Is Safari even supported by Wikimedia? Why is the problem unique to this one template (which hasn't been edited lately) and not other similar ones (IUCN3.1 NT, LC, EN, etc) that still display correctly?

Curiously, a minute or two after after the page has loaded, the blank space where the classification status image would be then has a small file icon with a question mark on it inside an outline box with the words img alt="" .

Hi Jts1882, I noticed that a data deficient entry (Oedipina ignea) is now showing the same type of behaviour as described above. IUCN 3.1 data deficient articles are visible to me on Chrome, but not Safari. As you had mentioned above that Sierra de las Minas hidden salamander produced a blank classification status image for you on Firefox, I checked and found that while I cannot see it in Safari, it does display properly in Chrome. This pattern is consistent for other data deficient articles as well. As this problem now appears to cover at least two O/S's (Firefox and Safari), IUCN templates (VU and DD), and users (both of us), I am even more puzzled. Your thoughts? Loopy30 (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Loopy30: When I said blank classification status image above I meant it shows the image that doesn't highlight one of the status circles, i.e. file:Status iucn3.1 blank.svg (see image on right). I see the conservation status images in all cases (Firefox, Chrome, Edge; all Windows 10). Since you are having problems seeing the images on this page, the problem cannot be due to the taxobox templates. For some reason you are not seeing the images, even though it is included in the HTML code. I can't think of anything else other than a caching issue. Try the instruction in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.   Jts1882 | talk  13:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I thought you were getting the same problem. As Safari (and this computer) is not my normal means of accessing Wikipedia, I'm not going to worry about it much further. As suggested, it's probably just a caching issue local to this computer. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, it's good to be vigilant over complex templates like the taxoboxes. It's nice when they don't turn out to be the problem.   Jts1882 | talk  15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I love the changes! Thank you so much, that's truly awesome! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, I changed the wording of the lead to make sense where English got garbled:

"...various genetic analyses have placed Eurypygimorphae in the almost obsolete clade Metaves, with uncertain placement within that group." 

Does it make sense now?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: I've made a further modification. I think it fair to sat Metaves is obsolete now and the sister relationship with the water birds is well established. Ardeae seems one of the higher level groupings where there is general agreement.   Jts1882 | talk  11:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to help me out with something? I want to expand upon our Betta articles, but I’m afraid I’m not a biologist. I looked at the Ocean sunfish and I’m impressed by how thorough and readable the articles is - I’d like to improve our articles on betta similarly. However, where I’m getting stuck is on how to describe fish. Is there a systematic way of describing fish species that you know of? I would be very grateful for any advise! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: I don't think I can help here. I don't know of any systematic way of describing fish species, but that is my lack of knowledge. If you plan to describe closely related fish then you'll want to focus on what distinguishes them and a specialist source might show the way.   Jts1882 | talk  11:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary#Section editing says your own edit summary should be added after the section title. You add it before and this makes it harder to read page histories where everybody else add it after. Will you please follow the convention? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are using the tab key to go from the edit box to the edit summary, it will position your cursor in the wrong spot. If you use the tab key and then the "end" key, you will be in the right position to add your edit summary.

In summary: TAB + END = PERFECT---Quisqualis (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jts1882,

Thanks for replying to my question on the Automated taxobox system page. I thought it might be easier to post my question here. I was talking about the Practice page – sorry for not clarifying earlier. I'm trying to create a new page on Psychopsiella limminghei, so I pasted in the page being used for D. speciosum. I thought I would first change the speciesbox before editing the content. In essence, I'm trying to create a new taxonomy template for P. limminghei (which is the parameter that is currently not working in the speciesbox). Sorry for confusing you. :)

JadeSpire (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Splachnaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tayloria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jts, were you still interested in completing an interview for the newsletter? If so, I wrote some questions out here. If you're no longer interested, that's fine too! Enwebb (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enwebb: I hadn't forgotten. I have written something, but it is rather long and needs a savage edit. Would later this week be OK? —  Jts1882 | talk  15:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Jts1882, that would be great! Thank you. Enwebb (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Species table/end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

hello,

List_of_South_American_countries_by_population is pulling an incorrect number for the population of Brazil. this is messing up the function built into that chart- where it calculates each country's proportion of total population of south america. it looks like you set this chart up initially. please take a look when you get a chance. thanks. skakEL 12:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skakkle: The table and chart pull data from List of countries by population (United Nations) and for some reason that page is a target of frequent vandalism. It was temporarily protected for a while but that seems to be over. I reverted the edits and List_of_South_American_countries_by_population is correct for now, but the main population list needs better protection. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I thought I might ask you some basic questions here to reduce clutter on the Wikiproject page. I've updated Black-tailed dasyure as a first go. As part of this, I adjusted the genus name, added the old name as a synonym, removed the parent_authority (also removed that from Short-furred dasyure as my understanding is it only applies to monotypic taxa), and checked the IUCN citation was accurate. I have not yet updated Template:Taxonomy/Murexia, perhaps this is better done when a genus article is created? I am unsure what to do with Template:Taxonomy/Murexechinus. I am unfamiliar with the Wikidata and Taxonbar system. The Wikidata needs updating, but I do not know what to fill in for the "stated in" field in the reference data point. I would appreciate it if you let me know if there are any further or different changes I should have made. Thanks, CMD (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Your changes are fine. I added a second Wikidata id so the taxonbar picks up the iucn identifier. I wouldn't worry too much about the wikidata and taxonbar changes as there are bots that handle some of the changes and other editors will see your changes and make corrections if necessary. I think it best to start making changes (WP:BOLD), even if you miss some aspects. My blind spot is categories and these usually get fixed fairly quickly.

I've changed the redirect at Murexia to a stub article. This also needed the redirect to be removed from {{Taxonomy/Murexia}} template. The other four species articles also need editing. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try and find some time to help out. Perhaps some code that could pull binomial names currently in use on the taxobox of each article and compare it to Mammal Diversity and/or IUCN would help catch articles in need of updates where redirects already exist like those of the other Murexia. CMD (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You have a much better handle on regex than I do. I'd like to find articles with automatic taxoboxes that have a reference in |subdivision_ranks= in order to move that ref to |subdivision_ref=. I figure something that would match e.g. "|subdivision_ranks=Genera<" as well as "| subdivision_ranks = Species <" (spacing varies, but there must be a < preceded by an alphabetic string). Thanks in advance. Plantdrew (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Instead of checking for particular groups (e.g. Genus), just do any alphabetic characters or spaces before <ref. This search gets 132 results. I also added a hyphen (adds one) and possibly other punctuation could be added. There is also the possibility of adding references with a template. This search gets five results, two using {{sfn}} and two using {{r}}. I think these will do what you want. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've worked through your searches, but realized I am going to need something else to pick up additional cases with a reference where the rank is linked; e.g. "subdivison_ranks = [[Genera]]<ref>". Plantdrew (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Added "[" and "]" to the allowed characters (these need to be escaped with "\") and the search gets 12 results. I also checked for some of other markup/punctuation (parentheses, single quotes) but there were no extras. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. I came across Planarian with "| subdivision_ranks = [[Suborder]]s<ref" which I assume wasn't get picked up because of the character between ] and <. And it occurs to me that subdivision ranks with a piped link might not be getting picked up either (e.g [[Family (biology)|Families]]) (I know the pipe needs to be escaped, but I'm just not sure where to put it in the expressions you've provided) Plantdrew (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: The key element is the [ a-zA-Z\-\[\]]*. That means any characters between the outer square brackets in any combination (space, any lower or uppercase letters, hyphen, square brackets). The * means none or many and \ is the escape character for the square brackets and hyphen. So you just need to add the escaped pipe within the outer square brackets (so this [ a-zA-Z\-\[\]\|]*). There are three more results with the pipe.—  Jts1882 | talk  06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And one more with parentheses in the piped title. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alcippe (bird), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sylvia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffomorpha Add Palaeomerycidae and Giraffoidea Bovoidea Add Antilocapridae and Bovidae Cervoidea Add Cervidae and Moschidae Antilocapridae will be transferred from Giraffoidea to Bovoidea Pillow6 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Fix these errors for me please You Edit for me Please and just Do it Jts1882 and ignore BlackcurrantTea Please Pillow6 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC) What does draft mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillow6 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calyptorhynchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zanda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done one update that looks good to me, but others may not like it: Bletchley Park (actually infobox museum} – I just removed the picky details that I assume were needed when the article was created.

The reason for this ping is that I wanted to fix Milton Keynes Coachway. But that uses {{infobox station}}, which doesn't seem to have this clever mapping facility. I am well aware that bus and rail fans are very touchy about outsiders 'interfering' so I am not optimistic about fixing it. Am I wasting my time? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I've added basic mapframe functionality to the sandbox version of {{infobox station}}. To see it in preview just edit the infobox in Milton Keynes Coachway so it uses {{infobox station/sandbox and add |mapframe=yes at the bottom. You can change zoom etc using |mapframe-XXX= parameters but these give a warning about unknown parameter at the moment. I can add the allowed parameters later if it is agreed to add the feature. It's off by default so shouldn't change any existing maps. In this particular case, I'm not convinced the mapframe map is an improvement on the existing map, but I see no reason not to add the option to the template. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess we would have to write this up an RFC at template talk:infobox station, I wouldn't dare to be bold and just do it! How are your reserves of patience? If you aren't convinced that it is an improvement on the existing map, then certainly the rail fans won't be, so maybe it is a lost cause before it even starts.

(I created the original static extract from OSM for Milton Keynes so by inclination I prefer it of course. It gives a better geographic context than the dynamic mapping. It has just two problems (a) it needs to re-extracted every ten years or so [I will do the next one as soon as developments to the west of the city are reflected, but may have wandered off Wikipedia by 2030!] and maybe more importantly, (b) it isn't zoomable: readers have to choose an external link. I suppose it has a countervailing benefit: readers on the DVD version of Wikipedia and no internet can't use a dynamic map).

So unless you want to press for a change to infobox station, I will drop the issue with thanks for your help and interest. Stay safe. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I would frame it as just adding an additional option, so I see nothing particularly bold about adding it as an opt in alternative to static maps. Nothing will change in any existing uses of the template and the decision to add the map would be made on a page by page basis by editors. It would indeed be bold to make the change opt out and automatically add the interactive maps to every use of the template or every use without a static map. This has been done for some infobox templates. I see no harm in adding an extra way for people to add maps when there are none available or the current one is poor. There must be some stations that have no map. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Your last point should really be the decider, so yes, let's give it a go. Would you propose and I will support. The proposal needs to emphasise that existing maps are unaffected. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts Tottenham Hale Station, Location ...

Tottenham Hale Station
Location

Close

@John Maynard Friedman: Perhaps the first step is to find station pages using the template without maps. Then the case for adding maps becomes clearer. A quick look finds the infobox for Hexham bus station in the Hexham article, where the map is a repeat if the map in the settlement infobox, so zoomed in map would be a useful addition. Tottenham Hale bus station in Tottenham Hale station doesn't have a map. The mapframe map (right) picks up a shape for the train station, which illustrates another potential benefit of mapframe maps.

However, there are a number of other templates for GB stations that don't use {{Infobox station}} at all. {{Infobox London station}} is used on over 800 pages and adds a pushpin map of London if coordinates are given as a parameter. There are also {{Infobox GB station}} (over 2000 uses) and its siblings for disused and heritage stations. These three templates are now subject to a merge with {{Infobox station}} (see merge discussion and merge talk) so it might be worth waiting to see how the merge goes before proposing anything new. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that RtM is what was at the back of my mind when I said that is a difficult area. It doesn't seem too unreasonable though, to propose enhancing infobox station in the meantime. It doesn't have to be frozen during interminable discussions, indeed it might create an added incentive to merge. OTOH, I suspect that proposing to merge the London stations at the same time would be "a brave decision, Minister". So the Tottenham stations are probably not the best example. Most (if not all?) the GB stations use infobox GB station, so maybe an Amtrak or Indian Railways station might offer a better case study? --16:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Grammistops, could you contribute to this? Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for being lazy, this can't be that hard, but I'm distracted with something else and you can probably fix this in a few seconds (if necessary). I just noticed that the info about the IUCN concept of endangered species has been removed from that article to here: endangered species (IUCN status). Thought it might be handy if the link in the template went directly to that article. Or actually just revert the change: outside of the USA the word "endangered" is almost always going to mean the IUCN definition... Eh? What's your take?

Turns out the EU also has (very unpublicised) conservation statuses for 6,000 species (basically 'good', 'bad' and 'very bad')... I'm still looking it over. Not sure yet if it merits a status bar, probably not. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Leo Breman: I've updated the taxobox templates so the endangered conservation status links to endangered species (IUCN status), but I think you are right this might need further discussion.

While it makes sense that an article on the general concept of endangered species is broader than the specific IUCN concept (more their threatened species concept), the split leaves the IUCN version as a rather technical one (without broader context) and the general article becomes very US centric, with heavy emphasis on the Endangered Species Act, which already has its own article. There are a number of regional conservation authorities (Brazil, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and Australian states) that could be discussed in addition to the US one. Some use their own criteria, but many use the IUCN criteria or a modified version. A general endangered species article should also cover all different categories that different conservation bodies use for what a lay person would consider endangered species, which would include all threatened categories. The Conservation status article already covers this, although could be expanded.

This change has tried to address a genuine problem but has opened a can of worms. There needs to be a general article on threatened or endangered species, plus more specific ones on conservation status systems and categories, but how many? Broader articles can be more informative, but narrow ones help with quick overviews (especially when seen in page view popups). —  Jts1882 | talk  07:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Jts1882, and the preliminary fix. I answered more thoroughly at the talk page of the article. Luckily we all seem largely on the same page. But, indeed, big can of worms. Leo Breman (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I always find it difficult to decide how far to go in "correcting" what I see to have been less good design decisions built into the automated taxobox system. Overloading parameters and the use of "blank vs. any nonblank" as a test are two features I wouldn't have included in the first place (although I still have enormous admiration for the way in which Smith609 managed to use – even "subvert" – the template coding language to automate taxoboxes).

When I started converting the system to Lua, there really wasn't anyone around to have a useful discussion with. So I'm delighted that you are involved now – and are checking up on me! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I'm glad you consider it constructive. I sometimes wonder how much to say. You've done an excellent clearing up some of the nested template spaghetti in the taxoboxes and I realise what a frustrating task that can be. There always seems to somewhere where parameters are used in an unexpected way.

As for {{taxobox/species}} I have made a start on a module version (Module:Conservation status) and I've used it to add a couple of additional systems (CNCFLORA, QLDNCA). It should be ready to use for all the status systems and handle all the options where there is |status= and |status_system= (i.e. parameters {{{2}}} and {{{1}}}). However, I baulked at tackling all the options in the lower half of the template where there is just a |status= as I wasn't sure about the template code. I need to revisit that at some point and we can remove another convoluted template. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've always steered clear of the status stuff, so I strongly support and encourage your work on this. Lua is definitely the way to go. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What do I mean? I wanted to write a page for Fagraea racemosa, except now it is Utania racemosa. The genus list at Gentianaceae is out of date., I tried importing from the list at POWO using some "format linked taxon" and other tools and couldn't get them to work properly. Is there one you recommend? Thanks for your work and your help, hope you and yours are well. Brunswicknic (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: The template I mentioned on the project page is {{format species list}}, which was written for species names, so was treating the second word as the species epithet. I've added options for |mode=genus and |mode=taxon which assume a single word genus or taxon name, possibly followed by an authority. Use |mode=genus for a list of genera to italicise the name and |mode=taxon for lists of families or other higher taxa without italics. The form to use is

{{subst:Format species list|mode=genus|
COPY AND PASTED LIST
}}

I tested the POWO list for Gentianaceae in my sandbox and it seems to work. I'll leave it for you to edit the article. I note there is at least one genus that needs disambiguating. Let me know if there are problems. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Sort went well, thank you very much. Thanks for the warning about disambiguation, that went well, except (sorry) Schultesia, which gives a blue link but then redirects to Gentianaceae. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this administrator territory? Brunswicknic (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: There is no article on Schultesia but someone has set up a redirect to the family. The solution is to replace the redirect at Schultesia with an article on the genus, which can be done by any editor. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up. A recent creation of two redirects instead of taxonomy templates, such as here, caused a large number of taxobox errors, which took me some time to debug. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the comment. Perhaps it is a good idea to slightly rephrase those sentences to describe Paulinella chromatophores as a distinct kind of plastids? What are your thoughts? Thank you, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you my jury-rigged method for creating a stub. For the base, I use the numerical ID of PoWO, which theoretically is already in the Wikidata item. The fields are "PoWO_ID", "Wikidata_item", "Generic_name", "Specific_epithet", "Image", "Caption", "Authority(s)", "Distribution", "Synonym(s)", "Subtaxa", "Author_citation", "Common_name(s)", and "Year_described". The PoWO_ID is used to as the base of the the URL, and as the name of the ref so it can also be reused as the ref for the synonyms and subtaxa. The Wikidata item is used in the taxonbar. "Year_described" is used to create the category "Plants described in …". An example of one of my stubs is Carex lepidocarpa. Ideally the template could take the Wikidata item and fill in everything but "Caption", "Distribution", "Synonyms", "Subtaxa", and "Author_citation". "Authority" might be a problem since Wikidata does not use the proper abbreviation. Even more awesome, the template could look at the PoWO listing (if given the PoWO ID, not the binomial, as there are numerous duplicates) and grab the info directly from there. Abductive (reasoning) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: Using Wikidata adds a level of complication. When I said it was straightforward I was thinking of the Wikidata ID just for the {{taxonbar}}. I think we can approach this in two stages, starting with a basic substitutable template to create a stub article. Items from Wikidata can be added later.

Have a look at {{Create plant stub}}. It handles the basic functionality: short description, taxobox, lede, taxonbar, categories. The documentation shows an example modelled after Carex lepidocarpa. Is this what you were thinking of? —  Jts1882 | talk  15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. One thing though; the subtaxa should not be wikilinked, as it will make users think they need to create those articles. The last thing anybody wants is more useless stubs on subspecies and varieties. Abductive (reasoning) 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. Can I ask a question here? I'm happy to keep working toward a much longer genus list (and damn the torpedoes ... until it blows up, I guess), but even so, there's no world in which it makes sense to delete the four current FLs. It might make sense to add new information to the four current FLs, if that's deemed necessary to distinguish that 4-part list from the new, much longer list, per WP:Summary style. I once reviewed a FL candidate that was a sublist of a longer FL list ... and the longer list had around 35 rows! And reviewers agreed that that was "long enough" to justify a new, shorter FL with more information! The longer genus list we're talking about here might have 14,000 rows, or possibly more. So this talk about not being able to have two separate lists is ... well, I won't say what I think it is. Also, four people helped me create these pages, and each had 3 reviewers, a source reviewer, and a closer at FLC. Wikipedians tend to get a little cranky when you throw their hard work in the garbage for no good reason ... particularly when they were taking time away from their lists to help me with my nomination. So, my question is: is there any suitable name that comes to mind for the 4-page list? Choess doesn't like "Stearn" in the title, and maybe you don't either, and that's fine ... so how do we disambiguate the current lists from a new, longer genus list with sparser information? Or do I need to add more information to the current lists before we can answer that? - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Choess (but with no obligation, of course). - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just occurred to me: one of the key features of the 4-page list is a column of photos and drawings that illustrate the etymological meanings. There's no reason the longer list needs to have these illustrations (and not having them would allow me to cover the list with more rows per page, thus fewer pages, which would be a plus). So we could add "illustrated" to the suggestion you two made of "List of accepted plant genera with etymologies" to disambiguate the 4-page list. Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The conversation is taking some new directions at User_talk:Choess#From WT:PLANTS; feel free to jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: I think a simple title is best. It doesn't need to include all the qualifiers, which can be explained in the text. So Choess's suggestion of "List of accepted plant genera with etymologies" seems to cover it, as would "List of etymologies of accepted plant genera" which would place the focus on the etymologies. Maybe "accepted" doesn't need to be in the title. Not including Stern means you can add extra genera where there are suitable etymologies, but the intro can still explain the origins in Stern and the additions and omissions. If you add illustrated to the title then the expectation is that all entries are illustrated. I don't think it necessary. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm picking up here the point you made in response to my post about Gesneriaceae at WT:PLANTS because it's about the workings of the automated taxobox system. At present, ranks are classified as either "major" and always displayed, or "minor" and only displayed if forced, either in the taxonomy template or in the taxobox, including if immediately above the target of the taxobox. There could be a third category, "minimus", to which subtribe would certainly belong, which would only display if forced, even if immediately above the target of the taxobox. It would be relatively easy to implement, although it would, of course, need a wide consensus across biology wikiprojects.

An extension would be to be able to force display of minor parents but not minimus parents, so that:

• |display_parents=N meant display N parents regardless of kind, minor or minimus (major are always displayed anyway)
• |display_minor_parents=N meant display N parents, but not minimus ones

I suspect this would be harder to gain support for.

Picking up another point you made, I've thought for some time that displaying by default only one minor rank above the target taxon doesn't work when that rank is like "subtribe" or "subsection". Even if rank "R" is a minor rank, if rank "subR" is displayed, "R" should be as well. This would be more fiddly to implement, but I would be willing to try it.

Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: The first suggestion is pretty much what I was asking for, so I'd definitely support that if its easy to implement. What other ranks would it apply to apart from subtribe? The unusual feature of the subtribe is that it needs tribe and subfamiy to make it useful in the taxobox (i.e. you want all of them or none of them). Your added comment answers this partially with subsection. Subseries is another.

While I generally support flexibility, the |display_minor_parents=N probably makes things too complicated, although it might help with some of the gastropod taxoboxes where there are relatively rare ranks that are important.

Yes, it would be good to include those "dependent ranks" automatically. The same applies to subdivisions of cohorts, divisions (zoological), sections and series. Then there is parvorder and epifamily to consider.

These ideas are worth considering, but I don't think it is something that justifies much time on implementing. It was just a thought sparked by an unusually clear tribe/subtribe system. The last one might be most useful as you don't want to see subtribe or subseries without their parents. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the table of arbitrary rank values at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank, then it seems that the logic for the "dependent ranks" would be something like

rankOffset = rankValue - math.ceil(rankValue/100)*100;
if rankOffset < 0 and rankOffset > -10 then always display (rankValue - rankOffset);

Fortuitously, because of the way I set up the values, this would also deal with parvorder, etc. (The system doesn't support "epifamily" – should it? where does it come?) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Below superfamily. It is sometimes used when trying to squeeze multiple superfamily concepts into a taxonomic hierarchy, e.g. Viverroidea/Herpestoidea or Arctoidea/Musteloidea. It's more common to move one up to parvorder or infraorder (the carnivora examples), but epifamily Termitoidae is used in the Blattoidea article. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So it could go in the system at, say, 802, between familia at 800 and superfamilia at 803. Is it worth adding? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not important as we can always use an unnamed rank for the hierarchy, but as it can be put in without renumbering everything I see no reason not to add it. If reliable sources use it, we might as well make its use possible. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that I had actually added it to {{Anglicise rank}} on 20 July 2020, but I didn't add it to the rank table for some reason, so its ordering would not have been checked. Now done. I think it's only used in Template:Taxonomy/Blattoidae. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

More generally, I can only find its use for termites (Blattoidae, Cryptocercoidae, Termitoidae) and for some passeroid birds (Icteroidae). I'm a bit surprised as I thought I'd seen it more often, as in those mammal examples I gave. One reason why they may prefer to use order ranks instead is because I don't think the names are governed by the ICZN code. They can use the familiar Viverroidea and Arctoidea as parvorders or infraorders, where properly they would have to change the ending to the unfamiliar -poidae if using epifamilies for musteloids and herpestoids. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have found one use of epifamilies in frogs that was used by quite a few authors in the early 2000s. The superfamily Ranoidea was divided into three epifamilies: Microhyloidae (for Microhylidae), Brevicipitoidea or Arthroleptoidea (for Hyperoliidae, Arthroleptidae, Hemisotidae and Brevicipitidae ) and Ranoidae (for Rhacophoridae, Mantellidae and paraphyletic Ranidae [now split into about a dozen families]). All three are now well recognised as monophyletic, but the epifamily names have been dropped in favour of the clade names Afrobatrachia and Natatarana for the latter two. This seems to go against convention for family group names. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I started looking at how to implement displaying rank R when any of the sub-R ranks are present. It turns out that it won't be as easy as I first thought, because (of course) the taxobox is displayed top down, so the decision to force the display of R has to be taken before reaching sub-R. This means it has to be done when the taxonomic hierarchy is first built up from the bottom, rather than when it is displayed from the top. This can be coded, but means several more bits of data need to be stored and passed around. It's still on my to-do list. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I made some preliminary changes in the sandbox necessary to implement this (discovering that my Lua is a bit rusty as I've recently been coding off-wiki in Java). However, I think finishing it would impose more processing on the display of taxoboxes than is probably justified. In the current live version of Module:Autotaxobox, a table is first created bottom-up by following the parent links, storing only the taxon name and rank. Then the table is displayed top-down in an automated taxobox, without any access to or use of the arbitrary rank values. The same table is displayed top-down when viewing a taxonomy template, but now the rank values are accessed and checked for consistency. To ensure that rank "R" is displayed if any "sub-R" rank is present means that the rank values need to be processed when preparing the table in both cases. Clearly this is possible, but I doubt that the extra processing time in all ~500,000 automated taxoboxes is justified for a useful, but marginal, gain, given that editors can use |display-parents=.

But I'd be happy to have an RfC somewhere if you think otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Agreed that it seems too much effort for marginal gain. Sometimes the changes are simple, other times an apparently simple change requires significant coding changes. It's worth bearing in mind in case some yet unknown future change needs similar changes.

>>> import pykew.powo as powo 
>>> from pykew.powo_terms import Filters 
>>> result=powo.search('Gesneriaceae',filters = [Filters.accepted, Filters.genera])
>>> [r['name'] for r in result if 'name' in r]
['Achimenes', 'Aeschynanthus', 'Agalmyla', 'Allocheilos', 'Alloplectus', 'Allostigma', 'Alsobia', 'Amalophyllon', 'Anetanthus', 'Anna', 'Asteranthera', 'Beccarinda', 'Bellonia', 'Besleria', 'Billolivia', 'Boea', 'Boeica', 'Briggsiopsis', 'Cathayanthe', 'Centrosolenia', 'Championia', 'Chautemsia', 'Chayamaritia', 'Christopheria', 'Chrysothemis', 'Codonanthe', 'Codonanthopsis', 'Codonoboea', 'Columnea', 'Conandron', 'Coptocheile', 'Corallodiscus', 'Coronanthera', 'Corytoplectus', 'Crantzia', 'Cremersia', 'Cremosperma', 'Cremospermopsis', 'Cubitanthus', 'Cyrtandra', 'Damrongia', 'Deinostigma', 'Depanthus', 'Diastema', 'Didissandra', 'Didymocarpus', 'Didymostigma', 'Dorcoceras', 'Drymonia', 'Emarhendia', 'Episcia', 'Epithema', 'Eucodonia', 'Fieldia', 'Gasteranthus', 'Gesneria', 'Glabrella', 'Glossoloma', 'Gloxinella', 'Gloxinia', 'Gloxiniopsis', 'Goyazia', 'Gyrocheilos', 'Gyrogyne', 'Haberlea', 'Hemiboea', 'Henckelia', 'Heppiella', 'Hexatheca', 'Jerdonia', 'Kaisupeea', 'Kohleria', 'Lampadaria', 'Lembocarpus', 'Leptoboea', 'Lesia', 'Liebigia', 'Litostigma', 'Loxocarpus', 'Loxonia', 'Loxostigma', 'Lysionotus', 'Mandirola', 'Metapetrocosmea', 'Microchirita', 'Middletonia', 'Mitraria', 'Monophyllaea', 'Monopyle', 'Moussonia', 'Napeanthus', 'Nautilocalyx', 'Negria', 'Nematanthus', 'Neomortonia', 'Niphaea', 'Nomopyle', 'Orchadocarpa', 'Oreocharis', 'Ornithoboea', 'Pachycaulos', 'Pagothyra', 'Paliavana', 'Paraboea', 'Paradrymonia', 'Parakohleria', 'Pearcea', 'Peltanthera', 'Petrocodon', 'Petrocosmea', 'Pheidonocarpa', 'Phinaea', 'Platystemma', 'Primulina', 'Pseudochirita', 'Rachunia', 'Ramonda', 'Raphiocarpus', 'Reldia', 'Resia', 'Rhabdothamnopsis', 'Rhabdothamnus', 'Rhoogeton', 'Rhynchoglossum', 'Rhynchotechum', 'Rhytidophyllum', 'Ridleyandra', 'Rufodorsia', 'Sanango', 'Sarmienta', 'Seemannia', 'Senyumia', 'Sepikea', 'Shuaria', 'Sinningia', 'Smithiantha', 'Solenophora', 'Somrania', 'Spelaeanthus', 'Sphaerorrhiza', 'Stauranthera', 'Streptocarpus', 'Tetraphylloides', 'Titanotrichum', 'Tribounia', 'Trichodrymonia', 'Tylopsacas', 'Vanhouttea', 'Whytockia']

>>> result=powo.search('Gesneria',filters = [Filters.accepted, Filters.species])
>>> [r['name'] for r in result if 'name' in r]
['Gesneria acaulis', 'Gesneria alpina', 'Gesneria aspera', 'Gesneria barahonensis', 'Gesneria binghamii', 'Gesneria brachysepala', 'Gesneria bracteosa', 'Gesneria brevifolia', 'Gesneria bullata', 'Gesneria calycina', 'Gesneria calycosa', 'Gesneria celsioides', 'Gesneria christii', 'Gesneria citrina', 'Gesneria clandestina', 'Gesneria clarensis', 'Gesneria cubensis', 'Gesneria cuneifolia', 'Gesneria decapleura', 'Gesneria depressa', 'Gesneria duchartreoides', 'Gesneria ekmanii', 'Gesneria exserta', 'Gesneria ferruginea', 'Gesneria filipes', 'Gesneria fruticosa', 'Gesneria glandulosa', 'Gesneria gloxinioides', 'Gesneria haitiensis', 'Gesneria harrisii', 'Gesneria heterochroa', 'Gesneria humilis', 'Gesneria hybocarpa', 'Gesneria hypoclada', 'Gesneria jamaicensis', 'Gesneria lanceolata', 'Gesneria libanensis', 'Gesneria nipensis', 'Gesneria odontophylla', 'Gesneria onychocalyx', 'Gesneria pachyclada', 'Gesneria parvifolia', 'Gesneria pauciflora', 'Gesneria pedicellaris', 'Gesneria pedunculosa', 'Gesneria pulverulenta', 'Gesneria pumila', 'Gesneria purpurascens', 'Gesneria quisqueyana', 'Gesneria reticulata', 'Gesneria salicifolia', 'Gesneria scabra', 'Gesneria sintenisii', 'Gesneria sylvicola', 'Gesneria ventricosa', 'Gesneria viridiflora', 'Gesneria wrightii']

Just wanted your opinion. List of mammals of Sardinia and List of mammals of Corsica exist, yet there is no reason for them to, since the two islands have no endemic mammal species, and those that might be are already included in List of mammals of Italy and List of mammals of France, respectively. Do you think this warrants a merge? And if so, should I write a post about it on WProject Mammals? Thanks. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion they should both exist. They are separate enough islands to keep even though many species are shared....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sardinia does have endemic species that have become extinct during the Holocene, such as the Sardinian dhole, Sardinian pika and Praemegaceros cazioti, that could be included. I would keep that one at least separate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You should've waited for a response on here. Those species (with the exception of the Sardinian pika) all became extinct much too early for them to be considered for a list like these. Usually, we keep it to species that are extant/became extinct after 1500. Also, the Sardinian pika isn't even endemic to the eponymous island; it was found on Corsica as well. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think 1500 should be a hard cutoff in all cases. For instance List of birds of New Zealand includes all birds that have become extinct since the arrival of the Māori in the early 14th century, which makes sense since these extinctions occured less than 200 years prior to the 1500 cutoff. Also the extinction time of the Sardinian Pika is uncertain, the only possible references to them post-1500 are anecdotal accounts from offshore islands with no physical remains. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Better than nothing. Also, we're talking about birds here, not mammals. The way they do things on WProject Birds is irrelevant. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I also think they should exist, even though they have no endemic species, which surprises me. There are lists of mammals for individual US states (e.g. List of mammals of Oregon, List of mammals of South Carolina), which have less ecological and geographic distinction. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

With the U.S. states, at least some of those have endemic species depending on the geographic location. That's not the case here. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to bring this official club source to your attention: Blank officially announces name as Atlanta United Football Club. There is a user who shows strong displays of WP:OWN, WP:ROWN and WP:BATTLEFIELD and wantonly reverts and blocks the addition of the club’s full name to the article. I’d appreciate a response when you have the time so that a resolution can be found. Thanks. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been awhile. I read this discussion again:

• Talk:List of countries by population (United Nations)#Alignment problem

There is new discussion about problems with the row number column here:

• Talk:List of countries by incarceration rate#Tables have messed up index columns

I was thinking that the simplest solution would be to add an integrated blank column on the left side of a table.

Then use Wikipedia:TemplateStyles to create a class=rownumbers.

The column head for that blank column would be

class=rownumbers|Row

The styles template would use whatever is the simplest CSS row counter.

The Phabricator thread has several methods:

• jquery.tablesorter: Add support for a "fixed" column of row numbers.

The web has several methods:

All or most Numbeo.com tables have an integrated fixed column of row numbers. For example; click the column heads here:

• https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

Found these 2 CSS methods with Google searches:

• How to index html table rows or how to Auto-number table rows? - Amitpal Singh.
• Automatic Serial Number Row in HTML Table - Marius Mateoc.

Both of them use very little CSS to do the job. I would do it myself, but I know only some very basic CSS.

After the template stylesheet is created I would go through the many existing fixed-row-number tables listed here:

• Category:Articles with tables with fixed row numbers

I would put the tables in templates using that stylesheet. I would add a blank column. That is easy to do with the visual editor.

This would solve all the problems with flag icons, zooming in and out, alignment, wide tables, etc.. I could remove class=nowrap too. Tables could contract and expand depending on screen size. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I like how your method does not require putting the table in a template. Nor does it require adding a blank column first. The CSS does that.

But sorting is not working correctly on any of the columns. Also, when sorting is attempted on any column a blank column shows up on the right side of the table. I tested this with Firefox and Chrome on Windows 10 Pro.

See User:Timeshifter/Sandbox144.

I like the idea of adding a template in front of a table rather putting the templatestyles line in front of the table. People are used to templates being added in articles, but not links to css stylesheets. The template can do that instead. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What sort is doing is sorting the column to the right. That's why the rightmost column doesn't sort, and the other columns appear to sort out of order. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: I checked the sort was doing something but didn't check the numbers properly. The table is sorting, but displaced by one column. I changed it so the column header is set by CSS (to "#"). I can't find a display: value that makes it behave like a header cell (the darker grey background). —  Jts1882 | talk  06:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Guarapiranga that this is an elegant solution. It is so much simpler than all previous solutions. Thanks so much! This will get wide use. I am thinking that the current location of styles.css may not be the best location. Since it is not involved with Template:Static column begin.

Template:Static column begin/styles.css

Will it work if it is somehow part of a template? Something like Template:Static row number column? That could be placed as a single line in front of a table? Combined of course with adding class=static-column-count. Or maybe class=static-row-numbers?

I adjusted the tables on my sandbox page to the latest changes, and did another test too. I removed class=nowrap on one test, and the row numbers are correct no matter how narrow the browser window is. And no matter how many lines a row consists of. This will greatly improve its mobile use.

User:Timeshifter/Sandbox144.

I am not concerned about the background color of the row number header cell. In fact, I think it would be nice if it had a distinctive color like yellow. Then people would soon learn that the color meant the numbers in that column were fixed static row numbers.

# may be OK as the row number header for English use . But not for some other languages. I found that out from other discussions.

I also tested sorting speed with the long table. See:

User:Timeshifter/Sandbox145.

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timeshifter and Guarapiranga: The intent was always to place it in a template. It's in {{Static column begin/styles.css}} because that's where I created it when we were looking at the issue before. I didn't want to create a new template until necessary. Template:Static row number column is fine if that's what people want. I'll match the class name to the file name (e.g. static-row-number-column).

One more thing, it is possible to add a few options using alternative or additional CSS classes. So "#" and "" (blank) could be options (e.g. class="blank-header" or class="hash-header"). The background colour should also be an option so it can be used with different table classes. I think different numbering styles possible (e.g. i,ii,iii or a,b,c), although I don't see a need. What can't be done is passing a parameter such as |header-title= or |row-number-offset=2. The options need to be hard coded into classes in the styles file (a few fixed colour options) and then selected by adding the appropriate class to the table. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is all fantastic, Jts1882. I remember butting the head against the wall to get {{rank}} to work properly. Only suggestion I have at this moment is that, personally, I would vert-align the numbers at the top rather than the middle (but perhaps that too could be a parameter). Guarapiranga (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was a frustrating exercise. I got close with a css solution, but it was sensitive to the screen size and magnification. This approach lets css do all the work so should be a general solution. Templatestyles is underused on Wikipedia as it can provide very simple solutions if you can find the appropriate css code (often quite difficult). The cladograms showing biological evolutionary trees now use CSS to draw the lines of the tree using a complex table structure.

I think a set of classes row-number-align-top, row-number-align-middle and row-number-align-bottom can be set up to handle the alignment. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Templatestyles is underused on Wikipedia as it can provide very simple solutions if you can find the appropriate css code (often quite difficult).

Yes! I just learned about it... from you!

Could it be used to format tables such that, by default, numbers are right-aligned and words left-aligned, as any spreadsheet does?

-- Guarapiranga (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: I don't think so. The css acts on certain types of HTML element. The formating you want needs to know the content of the element. That would need a css/javascript solution, which is not an option on Wikipedia pages. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hey, I have another question unrelated to this section, but related to css on WP... not sure this is the right place to ask, but here it goes: I wanted to created an rss feed for a watchlist (related changes, actually), that included just pretty much the summary on the watchlist page: date, page, #bytes changed... pretty brief. But I'm stuck bc there is no css wrapper grouping dates and pages changed. Do you see a way around that? Guarapiranga (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found a solution for this using fivefilters. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

thead tr.sort-row th { background-position: center; } /* thead only used for sortable tables in desktop view */

Hello and good morning @Jts1882:, i would to know of what did you exactly mean by "I think we should consider what people are expecting when they come to the article. I suspect most people are expecting mammals found there now, so don't want a list dominated by extinct animals. On the other hand, people might be interested to know about what mammals live there in the past have been made extinct by man. For instance would they be interested that the UK used to have wolves, lynxes and bears or would they only have interest in those making it past 1500AD? The IUCN 1500 is arbitrary (presumably something to do with written records) and I don't think arbitrary limits are particularly encyclopaedic (i.e. only listing the wolf and not bears and lynxes in my UK example). Perhaps there is a compromise. Restrict the main list to extant mammals (and recently extinct with documented last sightings) and have a section for selected extinct mammals which would need to be properly sourced for each entry." because i happen to have a deep feeling that having a cut off date for the IUCN which is 1500 AD specifically, is not appropriate for the list of mammals of anywhere and that we should allow animals that became extinct/extirpated in each region by the Iron Age, Bronze Age, Ancient History, Post classical history or any timeframe in written history but prior to 1500 AD. I personally suggest that the list of mammals of each region should include mammals that are either extinct or extirpated in any type of region in the world by anytime of written history (e.g. Bronze Age, Ancient History, Post classical history, Iron Age, or whatever time frame but before 1500 AD), due to the fact that having mammals only becoming in each region by 1500 AD or later after that particular timeframe is precisely illogical and not fair for the list of mammals only including 1500 AD. Anyways, so could you please tell me of what you meant by the quote that i included? -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was suggesting the main list show only include extant and recently extinct (with a reliable written record of the last sighting) and that other extinct mammals (relying on less precise sources, e.g, analysis of remains) could go in a separate section. This was just a suggestion as my position on this discussion is not established.

Anyway, I think we should keep the discussion in one place and discuss this further on the project page, rather than have a variety of fragmented discussions. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay fine, no problem we'll keep that discussion on one place, but i still think that mammals that became extinct/extirpated in any point in written history like i said before in any parts of the world should be kept at random list of mammals articles. But anyways, you're right that should be kept in the discussion. End of story. -- Animalworlds314 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've just compared the the phylogenies of Oliveros et al 2019 again Kuhl et al 2020 for three superfamilies: Muscicapoidea, Certhioidea and Bombycilloidea. I had assumed that there would be general agreement in these simple cases - but no such luck (that is unless I'm getting confused between suborders, parvorders, Infraorders etc). The two articles agree on Certhioidae but for Muscicapoidea the position of Cinclidae differs. For Bombycilloidea Oliveros has the family Bombycillidae in a basal position but Kuhl has it as sister to  Hypocoliidae in a derived position. Kuhl didn't sample all the families - but this isn't encouraging.

The wikipedia articles on the higher level passerine taxonomy are often out of date - but it isn't easy to know the best way to fix them - especially as there seems to still be uncertainty in the phylogeny and also in which names above family level are generally accepted by ornithologists. In 2014 Cracraft changed some of the oscine superfamilies to parvorders. Oliveros used many of the Cracraft definitions - but for example omitted Meliphagides (previously Meliphagoidea) which appears to form a good clade. Kuhl avoids using higher level names altogether - "Passeri OHC 10A" etc. (Note the Cracraft is one of the authors of Oliveros et al).

I notice in your enormous new cladogram you have the parvorder Meliphagida - where did this name come from? Happy editing - Aa77zz (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an error for Infraorder Meliphagides from Cracraft (2014). I think this was a left over from a cladogram showing Boyd's phylogenetic tree that I converted. He used Menurida, Climacterida, Meliphagida, Orthonychida, Corvida and Passerida for the corresponding Cracraft infraorders and then the broader superfamilies for Cracraft's parvorders.

I think a bigger issue is the choices of families. I've chosen to keep any Oliveros/H&M4 families and add the IOC ones. For consistency it would probably be better to chose one or the other, i.e. collapse the H&M4 families such as Tyrranidae following the IOC or follow Oliveros strictly. There might be a possibility of making this an option for {{clade transclude}}, which is a work in progress.

I have a detailed comparison of Oliveros and Kuhn locally. I should make a user subpage for this, like have done for fish, amphibians and squamates. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: Apart from differences in family coverage and recognition, the differences I see between the two studies are as follows:

1. Neosittidae sister to Mohouidae in clade sister to the three Corvides superfamilies in Oliveros; sister to Orioloidea in Kuhl
2. position of Psophodidae in Orioloidea (first branch in Oliveros; sister to Pachycephalidae+Oriolidae inn Kuhl)
3. position of Dicruridae in Corvoidea (second branch after Rhipiduridae in Oliveros; sister to Rhipiduridae in Kuhl)
4. Cisticolidae outside the Passerida superfamilies in Oliveros; part of Locusteloidea in Kuhl
5. Pnoepygidae outside the Passerida superfamilies and sister to Hirundinidae in Oliveros; part of Locusteloidea in Kuhl
6. Regulidae sister to Certhoidea in Oliveros; sister to Bombycilloidea in Kuhl
7. topology in Bombycilloidea, but Kuhl only samples three of the six families in Oliveros
8. position of Cinclidae in Muscicapoidea (second branch after Elachuridae in Oliveros; sister to Turdidae+Muscicapidae in Kuhl

The guide tree phylogeny in Feng et al (2020) is more compatible with Oliveros, with only the position of Regulidae different (agreeing with Kuhl). They agree on the positions of Neosittidae, Dicruridae, Cisticolidae and Cinclidae, but don't sample Psophodidae, Pnoepygidae, or sufficient bombycilloid families. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox netball biography/club career has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Jts1882, I'm trying my hand at typestyes. I was wondering if it'd be possible to id cells on tables with css, and then refer to them with a Lua function. Somehing like this:

table.spreadsheet {
  counter-reset: row;
  counter-reset: col;
}
table.spreadsheet tr {
  counter-increment: row;
}
table.spreadsheet td {
  counter-increment: col;
  id: 'R'+row+'C'+col
}

What do you reckon? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: I don't follow what you are trying to do, but I don't think you can set the ID with CSS or that Lua can work with CSS the way you want. Lua generates the HTML (directly or via Wikitext) and then the CSS determines how it is displayed on the page. Lua can set IDs and classes that can be used by preset CSS but can't dynamically change the CSS the way javascript can. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I see..

 Thanks. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 08:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I originally misspelled the title of this article as Paradichthyinae and have now corrected it, however the Automatic taxobox is still showing my misspelt name. Any ideas how to fix this? Does the redirect from my misspelt title need deleted? TIA Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Quetzal1964: Looks OK to me now. Sometimes changes to templates take some time to appear due to caching or some other IT gremlin. A null edit will sometimes help. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

could you fix the bottom two bar lines in User:Dracophyllum/sandbox#Full Dracophyllum Cladogram? It's annoying me.

Thanks. Dracophyllum 06:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done It's best to put the |grouplabel= on the outer clade as when nested in the structure it does strange and hard to predict things to the HTML table structure (the cladogram is made up of nested HTML tables). It also makes positioning the group labels easier as its 0-100% of the whole cladogram rather than 0-100% of the nested table.

You can also style the labels with CSS using |style= (for all labels) or |style1=, |style2=, etc. for the individual labels. I've added text colour. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You're a legend, thanks Jts!! Dracophyllum 07:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just wondering if you could update Module:SportsRankings/data/BSWW World Ranking? The rankings are now on , and the layout of the page was significantly changed, now including not only men's national teams. There are no previous rankings listed on this website. Regards.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tomcat7: I've updated the data. As they don't give the change in rank, just the direction, I've put the change in as +1000 (for up) and -1000 (for down) and modified the module code accordingly. Hopefully it does what you need now. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jts1882, I assume you created the Template:Static row numbers. I don't claim to understand it fully, but it appears to be a significant improvement for Wikipedia and I want to thank you for it. A related issue: the Template:Row numbers is discussed for deletion. I am hesitant to join the discussion because I am not sure if I understand the issue well enough. Maybe you could add some clarity to discussion? --Kallichore (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Re our comm : after your last edit, the popup displays : The jaguar ( ) (Panthera onca) is a large .., but the full page view does show the content inside the 2 IPA templates. It looks like it does not matter whether and what is written between 2 {{}} templates. Perhaps the preview popups can just NOT render text inside such templates? – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The content of the IPA templates was visible to me in full page in all edits and the "or" between the templates was also visible. Anyway, I think we've spent enough time trying to solve something beyond our control. The Navigation popups strip ut templates leaving gaps and the Page Previews doesn't strip the parentheses properly from empty parenthesese (after the nopopups display of the IPA template). Your taxobox solution seems reasonable and if others don't like it, we agree that once in the etymology section would be sufficient. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I still do not understand what you mean by not adding in scientific papers published by wikipedia users and common names used for specific periods of time. Could you elaborate, but in layman's terms? Firekong1 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Clade gallery/styles-div.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Clade/styles2.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Did you mean to add a couple of references at Prasinophyte? YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, they are now fixed (I hope). —  Jts1882 | talk  20:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Goal/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you !! While working on the aurochs, I referenced umpteen articles; some authors referred to BP, some to BC, others to 'years ago' – quite a mix of different time scales. Is there any template that allows to translate them all into just one, either BP or BC? Or can you devise one, e.g. similar to the {{mya}}? Cheers – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: And New Year greetings to you.

I'm not aware of such a template. There is {{Year article}} for AD and BC. Is a template really needed? Presumably in most biological cases it's just 2000 difference as they are estimates with low precision. If its carbon dating then the raw data should be rounded according to the precision of the measurement and you wouldn't want to convert it to a precise year BC. According to MOS:ERA BP refers to 1 January 1950, the carbon dating convention, so perhaps BP should only be used for carbon dating and BC (or BCE) otherwise. Can you be more precise about what the template would do in terms of input and output? —  Jts1882 | talk  12:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply. I had a look at some of the date conversion templates, but didn't find a suitable one. I imagine sth. like {{BP|1000|BC}} converting to 2950 BP, and {{BP|1000|ya}} converting to 950 BP. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC) And with a range of years, e.g. {{BP|1000-2000|BC}} converting to 3950–2950 BP. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The range example illustrates the problem with automatic conversions. When they say 1000-2000 the its more like approximately 1000 to approximately 2000, which should convert to approximately 4000-3000BC. Converting to 3950-2950 adds precision that wasn't intended. Also converting numbers or ranges and handling precision options makes a template much more difficult.—  Jts1882 | talk  13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

True is that none takes the decades between 1950 and now into account when writing 'approximately xxxx BC'. So do you think it ok to just convert BP=BC+2000, e.g. ~1000 BC = ~3000 BP? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time yes, although it depends on the precision. Some of the carbon dating is more accurate. A range of 2850-3000 BP would be 900-1050 BC, while 2800-3000 BP would be harder to decide between 850-1050 BC or rounding up to 900-1100 BC or just use around 1000BC (the errors would help decide). On thinking about it I think it best to present the carbon dating following the source with years BP as unit and a conversion in parentheses, e.g. 2800-3000 BP (ca. 1000BC). I don't think a template can handle this easily. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

When carbon dating in BP was referred to in the source, I used this anyway. But for the approx. BC dates, I convert to BP using ↑ formula. I just want to avoid BC and use BP as consistently as possible, so that the reader is not left puzzling. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your good and constructive addition to Talk:Giraffe#Pros and cons, and I respect you for your knowledge of the subject. While we still differ on the one issue you replied to in the parent section, I want to focus on what's likely to lead to a good solution. Cheers! ◅ Sebastian 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your further additions. Now I have a question: In one case, you write “favours reticulata as fourth species”. What do you mean by that? I was under the impression that all ‘four species’ sources include G. reticulata. Are you saying that somehow the sequence matters? ◅ Sebastian 12:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: A fuller statement would be "favours reticulata as a fourth species (in a four species model) rather than as a subspecies of campelopardalis (in a three species model)". The ASM-MDD account for camelopardalis says reticulata has been treated as a subspecies of G. campelopardalis by some recent authors, although it appears to be better recognized as a distinct species based on the most recent publications using whole genome data. Earlier versions of database followed Petzold & Hassanin in recognising three species. The download of version 1.31 says reticulata has been treated as a distinct species by some recent authors, although it appears to be better under G. camelopardalis based on the most recent publications and cites Petzold & Hassanin (2020). In version 1.5 they changed it to the current version recognising four species and added Coimbra et al 2021 to the citations. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. So, while all four species models include G. reticulata, you're pointing to the fact that this one source explicitly highlights this decision and contrasts it with its earlier stance. ◅ Sebastian 13:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This search finds a large number of articles where the species has the status EX but † doesn't show against the species name because |extinct=yes is missing. However, this search also finds some cases where the genus is extinct, so |extinct=yes isn't needed, and † does show correctly.

I haven't been able to figure out a search which leaves out the extinct genus cases. Can you?

(One possibility rather than going through and adding |extinct=yes is to use |status=EX in {{Speciesbox}} to insert the †, but this would need some discussion I think.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I assume the extinct genus cases get marked extinct because of the automated taxobox code, in which case I don't think a search can do it, as it would need to access another page (the taxonomy template). This would need to be done with a script.

However, I think what you suggestion about using the EX status should be implemented because it's what someone would reasonably expect. If setting up a taxobox with |status=EX, it's not obvious that another parameter is needed to mark the names extinct. Let |extinct= be reserved for when there is no conservation status. I think this would further rationalise the extinction parameters, along with adding |extinction_date=.

It might also be possible to use |fossil_range= to get extinction status, but that's probably too complicated for the number of cases involved. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Although the ICZN doesn't recognize 'ranks' below subspecies, there are things like forms and morphs (the latter beloved of lepidopterists for example), so I think it is worth providing some way of varying the name of the infra-subspecies rank, so that it's effectively an "infraspecies zoology" taxobox template. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I was considering {{Informal group}} as a more general purpose template for the taxobox edge cases. It could be used for the few taxoboxes using the |infraspecies_rank= collection of parameters, which confusingly are currently using {{paraphyletic group}}, as well as for zoological terms like forms and morphs. They could use the same parameters or possibly analogous zoological ones to keep separate from the plant/fungal ones.

Do you have some examples of manual taxoboxes using these "ranks"? —  Jts1882 | talk  11:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I found one morpha example at Sea trout, which uses the |infraspecies_rank= parameters. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pied raven is another example, where I set up a manual taxobox to make it work. I was reluctant to use any variant of an infraspeciesbox since this was originally set up for ICNafp names. I think "Informal group" is a better name/approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: This can now be done with {{population taxobox}} in two ways. I'm still thinking about parameter names and keeping them to a minimum.

More information Code, Output ...

Code	Output
{{Population taxobox | name = Pied raven | status = EX | extinct = 1948 | genus = Corvus | species = corax | subspecies=varius | population = ''leucophaeus'' | population_rank_name = Morpha | population_rank_abbrev = [[Polymorphism (biology)|morpha]] }}	Pied raven Conservation status Extinct (1948) Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves Order: Passeriformes Family: Corvidae Genus: Corvus Species: C. corax Subspecies: C. c. varius Morpha: †leucophaeus Trionomial name †Corvus corax varius morpha leucophaeus
{{Population taxobox | name = Pied raven | status = EX | extinct = 1948 | genus = Corvus | species = corax | subspecies=varius | infraspecies_rank1 = ''leucophaeus'' | infraspecies_rank1_name = Morpha | infraspecies_rank1_abbrev = [[Polymorphism (biology)|morpha]] }}	Pied raven Conservation status Extinct (1948) Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves Order: Passeriformes Family: Corvidae Genus: Corvus Species: C. corax Subspecies: C. c. varius Morpha: C. c. morpha leucophaeus Trionomial name Corvus corax morpha leucophaeus

Close

I have a question on varieties of a subspecies such as at Banksia dallanneyi var. dallanneyi. The entry at Florabase includes the subspecies component in the "trinomial" as Banksia dallanneyi A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele subsp. dallanneyi var. dallanneyi. The taxobox shows the subspecies in the hierarchy but not in the trinomial. Is this a limitation of {{infraspeciesbox}} or is it considered excessive to included both subspecies and variety? —  Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The ICNafp says that a name can have only three components (plus the connecting term). The 2018 Shenzen Code has somewhat softened its language, but Art. 24 is still clear that only the "trinomial" is a name; anything more is a classification. So it's not a question of "excessive" but consistency with the Code. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is an error, or [hopefully] a poorly resolved matter resulting from the revision of the genus, the Florabase entry (32580 with the curious treatment "subsp. dallanneyi var. dallanneyi" illogically gives a wider distribution than the entry (49039) for the subspecies. I'll keep looking for something in print. ~ cygnis insignis 13:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The description is "Dryandra lindleyana Meisn. subsp. lindleyana var. lindleyana - D. nivea var. subevenia Meisn., in A.L.P.P. de Candolle, Prodr. 14: 472 (1856). Type : locality not cited, south-western Western Australia, date not cited, L. Preiss 508 ( lecto (here chosen): NY). Typification. Of the four collections cited in the protologue, L. Preiss 508 and J. Drummond 1: 640" George, Nuytsia ~ cygnis insignis 14:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This 2020 edit you made to {{Subspeciesbox/sandbox}} was never applied to the live version. Should it be? I think it was a fix for name = with no value. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I don't remember that. According to the discussion at Template_talk:Subspeciesbox it fixed the empty name discrepancy pointed out by Plantdrew. I implemented the change you suggested. With the sandbox version, the trinomial is the taxobox title when |name= is empty and absent (tested at orange-bellied trogon). However, is that the desired behaviour? Should the page title set the taxobox title when name is absent?

That edit also seems to remove the extinction parameter from the trinomial, which isn't mentioned in the edit description. I don't think that is wanted.—  Jts1882 | talk  08:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, my link was to the comparison between the live and sandbox versions, it should have been this edit only.

Um.

• Experiments at Grizzly bear (Template:Subspeciesbox) show that the taxon name is set as the taxbox title when |name= is absent, but the page name when it is empty.
• Experiments at Carrot (Template:Infraspeciesbox) show that the taxon name is set as the taxbox title when |name= is absent and when it is empty.
• Experiments at Lion (Template:Speciesbox) show that the page title is set as the taxobox title when |name= is absent and when it is empty.

This can't be right. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Clearly {{Subspeciesbox}} needs changing to give consistent results. And one of {{Speciesbox}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}} needs changing so all three behave the same. You could argue that a taxon-box should always show the taxon name. However, an infobox usually follows the page title or a variant of it and the taxobox already has the taxon name displayed prominently and nowhere else to include a common name. So, on balance, I think {{Subspeciesbox}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}} should be changed to default to the page name like {{Speciesbox}}, which I think is also the behaviour of {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{taxobox}}. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. I came to ask for advice when it comes to editing grammar of other users, since I'm a bit of a grammar nazi, and I have no intention of disruptive editing or vandalism. I'm speaking from a place of understanding, as I'm still learning and growing as a wikipedian. Firekong1 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to talk pages, then the best advice is not to edit other people's comments, even if there are obvious grammatical errors. I make exceptions for constructive edits like adding wikilinks to pages and templates that will help people see what is being discussed, but I'd only do so for editors I've had some discussions with before, not for an unknown editor. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now. I just hope that my edits didn't come off as disruptive or vandalism. That's never my intent. Firekong1 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia has some weird conventions, but many based on common sense and respect. If you make edits to improve articles and engage in discussion when unsure, you'll find Wikipedia a positive experience. Most frequent editors in the zoology and botany areas are pretty receptive to questions by people unsure of the best approach. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear! Do you mind linking me to them so I can ask them in the future? Firekong1 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey: I collated this with 3 different basemaps, all with labels; and tried a few colours for the polygon layers: in the 1st, blue turned out to be the best colour for the layers as it contrasts with the red labels for cities of the basemap. In the 2nd + 3rd map, red layers are best imo. The 1st + 3rd basemaps are also available withOUT labels for cities, but the 3rd without city labels has state borders. So the question is : are city labels important? – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Thank-you. I like the middle one. I would say no to the big city labels (and markers) on the left map as the markers can get confused with the dots for the remnant populations. The state borders on the middle one help pin-point the location of the populations. I prefer the terrain map of the first, though. I wonder if the maps could be zoomed out slightly or widened to catch a bit more of the California coast, which would the North America location more obvious. As is, the middle one would be a big improvement on the existing map. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If zoomed out, the layer with the remnant pop units will of course look again smaller. What I do not like in the 2nd map is that the city names are poorly readable. I'll see whether I find a basemap with just state borders and terrain. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you like this terrain basemap? City names render a bit better readable than in the ↑ 2nd sample and country name as USA. I can also lighten change the bright green a bit to a somewhat more leafy looking green. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC); BhagyaMani (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I like that basemap. There are always compromises, so if labels can't be read it's not that important when the names aren't important (the animals don't care). As I said, the middle map above is an big improvement on the one in the article, so anything you can improve on is even better. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See this version and let me know what you think re colours + labels. It's quite a big file, but I can reduce to 800px width > that should still be sufficient for the purpose. − BhagyaMani (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: I like it as it is. No need to reduce it as people can look at the full size of see the nearest towns if they want the information. Smaller versions will appear on the page. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I reduced it slightly in px size, and city names are still clear when viewed in original size. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The cladograms are now so, so much better. Thanks for being bold. I was hesitating, unsure what to do.

It could be useful, I think, to show the paraphyletic s.s. definition of Charophyta as per the taxobox. It could be put on one of the cladograms using the "bar" parameters, and if separately explained and referenced shouldn't be synth. This could serve as a ref, but this doesn't show embryophytes either, so both could just be because they aren't algae. Is there a good recent source for the paraphyletic circumscription? Or is it just historical? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Some of these cladograms with long lists of references have bothered me for some time. Your edit summary hit a chord. At least this time the cladogram was identifiable (Li et al, 2020), although the description of it as a consensus was wrong.

Having made the changes I think the consensus plastid cladogram is sufficient for the charophyta article, as the nuclear genome study finds the same topology. The extra phylum is only important for chlorophytes, which need redefining to avoid paraphyly, and green plants in general. I've left the dual cladogram for now, as it can be a starter for changes elsewhere.

I think a mention of the different topology in Gitzendanner et al (2018), with Mesostigmatophyceae sensu AlgaeBase, early branching and sister to Chlorophyta+Streptophyta needs mentioning or it could replace the second cladogram. Then we'd have two different views of charophyta. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the point expressed in the following paragraph from Gitzendanner et al. (2018) could usefully be represented in the article:

"The position of Mesostigma + Chlorokybus has fluctuated in different analyses, with Lemiuex et al. (2007) finding this clade either sister to Streptophyta or Streptophyta + Chlorophyta. The nuclear analyses of Wickett et al. (2014) and the Green Plant Consortium (unpublished manuscript) both found Mesostigma + Chlorokybus sister to Streptophyta."

Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

which edition says "preferred"? ~ cygnis insignis 10:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Could review for the article? I think we only need one more such we have two contents reviews a source check and an image check. LittleJerry (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: What is involved in a review and what is the required timeframe? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Didn't know you haven't done a review for FAC before. LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have time to : read it carefully for any mistakes you might find or questions you may have. Is there anything that can be misunderstood or not sufficiently clear, or is missing? – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you please give advice how to improve the layout of the cladogram in the section *Phylogeny* on this page? At present, it is set in a 3-column table, which looks ok on a wide screen. But on a small screen requires scrolling to the right. Wouldn't it be better to set this in a clade gallery ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Clade gallery will allow wrapping on narrower screens. However, the width/height options are limited and with the current defaults the third image wraps, which isn't wanted. Fixing equal widths leaves the 1st and 3rd cladogram squeezed. Let me try something here.