Template talk:Speciesbox - Wikipedia

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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