Template talk:Speciesbox

Not Evaluated

Is there a reason that 'Not Evaluated' appears differently from other statuses? It's the only one I've seen that is spelled in italics and does not link to its corresponding article. – Primium (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Never noticed that before, but I assume it is to distinguish it from an actual conservation status. 'Not recognised' is also italicised and 'Invalid status' is in italics and bold. Why is it not linked? Possibly it was considered self-explanatory when the templates were written and no one added link when the article was created. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Primium: I've linked the article and removed the italics for consistency, as the IUCN do list it as a category.

I'll add that I'm not sure of the value of showing this in the taxobox. 'Not recognised' (see Southern giraffe) has even less value. In contrast Data deficient does provide some information. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Italics not rendering

Hello! I'm trying to use speciesbox for an article, Microhodotermes viator, and neither the name in the infobox nor the article's title is being automatically italicized by the template. I've worked around it with the Italic title template and by setting the name in the infobox with italic formatting, but as you can see in this version, without these hacks neither the article title nor the infobox name are italicized. Would appreciate any insight/help! Thanks very much :) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you sorted it out. A better way is to provide |taxon=Microhodotermes viator and the template will automatically handle the italics. You didn't provide |taxon= or |genus= + |species= so it took the scientific name from the page title which doesn't get the italics handled.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you! I will do that. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Template displayed slightly too high

This seems like a bug, although I can't see where it's occurring. This template is rendering about one line of text higher than a regular infobox does, on the desktop view.

On an article like Bluefish the top of the template is slightly higher than the first line of the lead, where a regular infobox would be slightly lower than it. Where an article has a problem template above the lead, like Muskellunge, the template actually overlaps it slightly. Belbury (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are using the default Vector 2022 skin. I think the problem is due to parser bug T18700 which inserts an extra <p class="mw-empty-elt"></p> above the taxobox, which shifts its position. The empty paragraph is place above the first paragraph of text and the taxobox floats to its right. You can edit the code with Inspect in the browser and deleting this paragraph restores the taxobox to its correct position.

Previously we got around the bug by adding a <nowiki /> before the taxobox, which prevented the extra paragraph being inserted by the Wikimedia software (for reasons unknown). Unfortunately this solution doesn't work in Vector 2022, although it still works in other skins [edit: this might not be so]. One solution was the put the taxobox inside a div element, but this interferes with the position of the taxbox in mobile view (shifted below the first paragraph), which is a big no-no.

The ideal solution would be to fix the parser bug but as the bug was noted in 2008 I'm not holding my breath.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

For some reason the CSS for Vector 2022 has .mw-body p + table {margin-top:-0.5em} which shifts a table immediately after a paragraph upwards. The parser bug inserts an empty paragraph before the taxobox table which cause the shift upwards. I've modified the CSS for the taxobox core to restore the 0.5em margin. The CSS is heavily qualified so shouldn't affect anything else.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well found! Thanks, that looks as it should for me now in Vector 2022. Belbury (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

'synonyms' should be called 'alternative names'

In my humble opinion. Emdosis (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Emdosis:, synonyms is a much more concise term for the faild, as the names listed are rarely/never "Alternates" in the sense that they are available to be used interchangeably with the accepted taxon name.--Kevmin § 11:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. It's just the fact that it's not always that way. I was thinking about alternative names that aren't considered as valid, but some still prefer to use that moniker. Is there sth like a subdivision for 'binomial name' perhaps? Emdosis (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Emdosis, those names are still synonyms or invalid though, with very rare exceptions. That some still prefer to use that moniker are always going to be situations best dealt with prose, with an explanation as to the accepted names priority over the synonym/invalid name. (Again, if this is wikifauna related then its not going to be considered anyways, as those pages should be treated as historical and not continually added to on a whim).--Kevmin § 17:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please add a customizable parameter

Bottom text. Emdosis (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Emdosis:, please give some details of what the "bottom text" is needed for, and example page where you feel it will be useful.--Kevmin § 11:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with a generic bottom text section is that people will start adding all sorts of stuff there. Some wikipedia have links to Wikidata, Wikispecies and Common in a footer section that is quite convenient. There is a debugging option in the module used for {{paraphyletic group}} and a few other edge case taxoboxes which we could use for testing if their is a special proposal. But in general I think any additional sections should have a specific function.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha, gotta love the innocence of Wikipedia-editors. "Bottom text" is just what people on the internet (specifically in the meme community) put when there's a required input but you have nothing more to say than the title. Emdosis (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DONTBEADICK, comment on content, not editors.--Kevmin § 20:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment came over as demeaning. It was not my intention at all. I genuinely enjoy the fact that Wikipedia editors are different from the rest of the internet. I was not trying to sound sarcastic. Emdosis (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. People put all sorts of stuff as (unsupported) parameters in infoboxes. Infobox settlement has instances of |iconic_youngster_name= (unencylopedic), |Driving Side:= (not relevant at the level of a settlement), |Famous temple= (not infobox material}. None of those are supported by {{Infobox settlement}}, so they are not displayed. Taxoboxes used to have instances of dozens of unsupported parameters for random tidbits that somebody thought should be displayed in the taxobox, but I cleaned them up years ago. There is no need for a customizable parameter to display whatever unpredictable garbage somebody might be tempted to add. Plantdrew (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to put some random nonsense tho. I just want to add another genus,species etc. (So like genus¹, species¹, genus², species².) Emdosis (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So you want the "|Subdivision=" parameter, it's already there. (unless your looking to use it as you have done on the Wikipedia:WikiHedgehog and other Wikipedia:WikiFauna pages, at which point you are misusing the taxoboxes).--Kevmin § 20:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that it what I'm interested in having added. If that's not possible, how about the possibility to change the displayed text of a parameter (specifically, genus). Emdosis (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We're not going to add parameters for the sake of Wikifauna pages. {{Taxobox}} offers more flexibility in what is displayed (e.g. you can do piped links from fake taxa to real ones). {{Automatic taxobox}} allows you to display a fake genus (via |genus_text=) without requiring that a taxonomy template be created for it. Not that I think there is really any call for making up fake genera for Wikifauna. A fake species really ought to be enough to make a Wikifauna page with a taxobox. I don't see any reason why WikiHedgehogs need to be two species in different genera, but if you really want to do it that way, |subdivision= is the way to go. Plantdrew (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, so subdivision, got it. I'll try that out next time. Emdosis (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 26 October 2024

Description of suggested change:

I suggest that the 'type_strain' parameter, currently intended for only bacteria, gets renamed to 'type' or 'type specimen', which then could apply to any biological species, not only bacteria. This parameter is used in many protist pages, but their type material is often not a living culture but an electron microscope slide or a similar preparation. Furthermore, this is essential taxonomic information and I believe botanist and zoologist editors alike would appreciate it.

Diff:

−

Type strain

+

Type

— Snoteleks (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: so how would you use this for a species of plant or animal? Can you give several examples, please, so we can see what might be involved. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead I am not experienced in how animal types work, but I know that each plant species has either an illustration or (most likely) a herbarium sheet that is assigned as the type of the entire species. They can all be seen at the IPNI website (though I believe mosses are not considered there) and many at JSTOR Global Plants. For example, the species Eucalyptus phoenix has one holotype MEL 2360702 (the MEL code refers to the National Herbarium of Victoria, and the number string is the specific herbarium sheet), and several isotypes (i.e., copies of the holotype, which become the type if the holotype gets destroyed) stored in other herbaria around the world. If I recall correctly, holotypes are also used in zoology, so it should follow the same logic. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not completed. Editor Snoteleks, the |type_strain= parameter is designed only for bacteria; "type strain" is nomenclature specific to bacteria, and to rename it something else would make the parameter ambiguous for bacteria. If you have considered that an additional parameter is needed to note types or holotypes for other organisms, then feel free to start a discussion toward that end. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Specifying regional vs global Red List status?

Just wondering if there's a particular way that I should be using the status parameter to indicate whether a IUCN Red List assessment is global or regional. This usually isn't important, but in some cases the Red List only assesses a species within a certain part of its range (eg. Europe), and I feel that this could be valuable information to provide in the speciesbox, especially for species with large ranges that have only been assessed in a select area. Currently, I indicate this in the relevant reference by simply following the recommended citation provided by the Red List, which includes "([insert region] assessment)" in the title. Please let me know if there's a better way of doing this, or if my current method is sufficient. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The taxobox should show the global assessment. If the regional one is important it can be discussed in the text. I haven't seen a cases where a regional assessment doesn't have a global one. Have you an example?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

To answer my own question, there are several frillwort species (see Fossombronia (may need to change geographical scope to see regional assessment).  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, certain Fossombriona species are exactly what prompted me to ask this, though they definitely aren't the only examples of species with wide ranges being only assessed in one region. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added Europe in parentheses to the |status_ref= parameter with this edit. Is this a solution?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that works, but it doesn't look especially neat. Some sort of dedicated "status_region" parameter that displays "[insert region] assessment" would be the ideal solution in my opinion, if there are no other existing methods for handling regional assessments, but I'm not sure how viable that is. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A |status_region= is a possibility, although would need consensus. How about this version?  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks quite good, thank you! That's pretty much how I was picturing a hypothetical "status_region" param. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Subheading when hiding synonym lists with Species list template

Long lists of synonyms can be hidden by using {{Species list}} with |hidden=yes. Right now, the subheading that appears to the left of the "[show]" link is centred in the taxobox, e.g. at Populus alba. Eewilson has suggested (at Template talk:Taxon list#Option to justify header?) that it would look better if such a subheading ("List" in this example) was left-aligned. I agree, and am inclined to change {{Species list}} to make this the default with a hidden list. Comments? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, would probably look a little more sleek. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a look with Inspect to change the CSS and agree.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you know I'm for it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm for it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've been bold and changed {{Species list}}. It will take time for the effect to propagate, but it's ok at Populus alba. Nymphaea alba is an interesting example. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter!! Nymphaea alba must have been done by an editor after my own heart. It could now nicely use the header parameter for the separate infraspecies names, which is what I like to do. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eewilson: actually, I see from the history that I moved the synonyms to the taxobox on 12 July this year, but I'd forgotten that I did it. I hadn't thought of putting the subspecies names as the headers for the lists, but this would be better, I think. However, I'll leave it to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I shall add it to my list. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I did that.

Peter coxhead, Can you add documentation about the header parameter and any other parameters that aren't documented to the {{Species list}}? Or I can, if I can figure it out. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. They are already there and I can't read well when I am asleep. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)