Template talk:Taxobox

Template-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

Can someone please convert {{taxobox/core}} to use {{infobox}}, like on the majority of other infobox templates? I converted the sandbox version of that template to use {{infobox}} to the best of my abilities three weeks ago on revision 1228241665, but I couldn't figure out how to make {{taxobox/species}} and {{taxonomy}} look and function exactly the same on the sandbox version of that template as on the original version. PK2 (talk; contributions) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What advantage is there in converting to using {{infobox}}? The {{taxobox}} template predates the infobox system and works effectively.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

One potential DISadvantage is that text in infoboxes is smaller than text in the body of the article. Most text in taxoboxes is the same size as text in the body of the article, but authorities are usually rendered in smaller text (either via code in the taxobox template for parameters such as |binomial_authority=, code in other templates such as {{Species list}}, or HTML <small> tags). If taxoboxes used the default smaller text of infoboxes, the authorities would be "double smalled", a size which violates accessibility guidelines. Plantdrew (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the proposed conversion to the infobox style for the sake of furthering visual consistency across the encyclopedia. I agree with Plantdrew that any MOS:SMALL issues should be resolved before such a change is implemented. — Goszei (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Your work in the sandbox is appreciated and looks very challenging. For now, it appears that a consensus needs to be established for this major change. Please garner the needed consensus before using the {{edit template-protected}} template again. Thank you very much for your work! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is there no header above the second conservation status?

I don't mean there should be one, but I can't understand why the code doesn't produce one.

If you look at {{taxobox/species}}, it generates the code for the header cell on line 2.

{{#if:{{{2|}}}|
! colspan = 2 {{!}} <div style = "text-align: center">[[Conservation status]]</div>

This is not conditional (the #if statement in line 1 wraps the whole template), so you'd expect the header each time the template is called.

If you look {{taxobox/core}}, the calls of {{taxobox/species}} are on lines 22 and 23:

|- style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color: {{{colour}}} }}"
{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status_system|}}}|{{{status|}}}|{{{status_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}
|-{{#if:{{{status2|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status2_system|}}}|{{{status2|}}}|{{{status2_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}

The wikitext for the header in {{taxobox/species}} is placed on a new line, but I don't think that new line is output in the wikitext, as if it was the header would appear on the second conservation status. It seems that line 23 generates the following wikitext:

|-! colspan = 2 {{!}} <div style = "text-align: center">[[Conservation status]]</div>

The header doesn't appear as its wikitext doesn't start on a new line and is ignored. Two tests in edit preview (test with lion) seems to confirm this:

• Combining lines 1 and 2 of {{taxobox/species}} makes no difference:

{{#if:{{{2|}}}|! colspan = 2 {{!}} <div style = "text-align: center">[[Conservation status]]</div>

• But adding a new line after |- in line 23 of {{taxobox/core}} produces a header for the second conservation status.

|- style="text-align: center{{#if:{{{colour|}}}|{{;}} background-color: {{{colour}}} }}"
{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status_system|}}}|{{{status|}}}|{{{status_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}
|-
{{#if:{{{status2|}}}|{{taxobox/species|{{{status2_system|}}}|{{{status2|}}}|{{{status2_ref|}}}|extinction_date={{{extinct|}}} }} }}

Does this matter? Possibly not if it works. I only discovered this because I added a second conservation status to Ungava brown bear, which uses {{population taxobox}} that uses Module:Biota infobox, and I was surprised to see the second header. In that code I'd added the newlines to generate the proper table wikitext. The fix was to remove the new line so the header doesn't appear, which isn't entirely satisfactory.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2024

Invert status trackers in dark mode for legibility of black labels.

Dark mode tests for IUCN 3.1

Status	Without inversion	With inversion
EX
EW
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
(all highlighted)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I've added class=skin-invert-image to the status graphics for IUCN3.1. There is an issue that the background of the image is black rather than the page background (e.g. see lion, but this is an obvious improvement so I've made the change live.

Am I correct to assume that this class should work for all the conservation status graphics (or even all graphics)? If so, I think the above issue can be fixed by editing {{Taxobox/core/styles.css}}. But all the conservation graphics images of other status systems will need updating first.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Images updated with class and taxobox styles edited for transparent background.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson: The taxobox conservation status images have been updated with class=skin-invert-image as discussed above. The issue with a black background for these images has been fixed with this edit to line 7 of {{Taxobox/core/styles.css}}. I suspect that line 16 might also need changing but I'm not sure where it would have effect (possibly the dark mode gadget?) so won't make a change I can't test. Could you please have a look?  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Deactivating edit request as apparently not ready to go live (and Jts1882 can do it themselves when they think it is ready). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Documentation inconsistency APG III/APG IV

WP:PLANTS consensus is to use APG IV (see quote, below), but on Template:Taxobox/doc, APG III remains in most locations (including in a statement on the project's consensus).

Here is the text from the taxon template on the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template):

For the largest group of land plants, the angiosperms ("flowering plants"), Wikipedia:Wikiproject Plants consensus is to use the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's APG IV classification system. The APG IV system does not have formally named divisions or classes, but includes several hierarchically nested, informally named clades. The {{Automatic taxobox}} employs the informal APG clades. When using the standard {{Taxobox}}, the informally named clades should be presented by using parameters such as |unranked_divisio= in place of formal rank parameters.

Does Template:Taxobox/doc just need to be updated? Are there any locations in this documentation where APG III should remain? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That's just an oversight, which I've updated. Documentation is often out of date so I've rephrased it to say uses the APG classification, currently APG IV.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882, That's cool. There are five more locations in the doc where APG III is used. Can you look into those, too? I'd just change them myself, but I don't have enough experience with the differences to know if one is intentional. Note that there is a place where the major ranks are given. If that has changed, it may need to be updated in the documentation. Sorry to delegate rather than just do it, but like I said, my current knowledge is limited in this area. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)