Template talk:Speciesbox

Template:Speciesbox is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Tree of Life Template‑class

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 270 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Banding codes for birds?[edit]

I wanted to suggest a potential addition to the speciesbox for bird species, the banding code. These are standardized 4 or 6-letter abbreviations of bird names used for brevity in checklists and database entry (4-letter based on the common name, e.g. MODO for MOurning DOve, 6-letter based on the binomial name, e.g. ZENMAC for Zenaida macroura) based on the common name. For many they are self evident, but for others there is ambiguity (should Great Blue Heron be GBHE? GRBH?) or conflict (Canada Goose, for example, is CANG, rather than CAGO, as CAGO conflicts with Cackling Goose). I think it would be useful for birders to be able to quickly reference these codes in the speciesbox. Gvbox (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With two standards (BBL & IBP) and limited geographic applicability (North & Central America), I'm not sure these abbreviations should be incorporated into speciesboxes. If somebody is interested in these, in what direction would they be likely to search? 1) From the full name of the bird to find the abbreviation, or 2) from the abbreviation to find the full name of the bird? I would guess it's 1, but if it's 2, creating redirects for the abbreviations might be appropriate. iNaturalist lists abbreviations as common names in the "language" "Aou 4 Letter Codes"; does AOU follow BBL or IBP? WT:BIRDS might be a better place to discuss presenting the abbreviations in articles. Plantdrew (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The {{taxonbar}} might be a better location if the codes were available on Wikidata. I can't find the AMBBP/BBL or IBP codes on Wikidata, so they would need to be added. The EURING number (P3459) is already available and that seems a similar thing. It might also be possible to allow it as a manual parameter in the taxonbar, although these seem to be discouraged. — Jts1882 | talk 09:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error tracking when genus parameter (or first word in taxon parameter) isn't a genus?[edit]

At Peracle reticulata, the family Peraclidae had been put in |genus=. A taxobox displayed, but with no genus and the binomial displaying as Peraclidae reticulata. It seems like this is something that should go in an error tracking category. Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Evaluated[edit]

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]

Italics not rendering[edit]

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]