Jump to content

Template talk:Taxonbar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Seeking Input

I am currently seeking comments regarding the design and implementation of this template at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Seeking_critique.2Freview_of_.7B.7BTaxonbar.7D.7D.--MCEllis (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Template coding

Does anyone know of a way to get the template to pull the formatter URL (Wikidata:Property:P1630) parameter from each Wikidata ID parameter? Ex: I want to retrieve Property:P1630 from Property:P1070. Can lua do this?--MCEllis

I have no idea. I don't think there are many people watching this page. If you need help with coding take it to a more watched forum. Help_talk:Template may have more watchers than here, but there's probably an even better place to ask among the meta pages dealing with templates. Plantdrew (talk)
I got it. I've updated the code to use the designated formatter URLs, now there is much much less chance we'll need to update any broken links, as long as the formatter URL (Property:P1630) is kept up to date for the taxonomy databases included in Wikidata. We will still need to make sure we maintain correct urls for manually added databases which are not currently included in Wikidata such as WCSP.--MCEllis

@Izkala and T.seppelt: Who each may be able to help with some of the coding issues on this template's "to do" list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding New Zealand Organisms Register ID to Taxonbar template

I've recently proposed and had accepted the addition of the New Zealand Organisms Register ID into the Identifier fields in Wikidata. Ideally I would like this identifier to be automatically added to the Taxonbar of any species that has the Taxonbar markup on their page and also has that identifier listed in Wikidata. I would like to request that this property be added to the Taxonbar template. Thanks in advance for considering this. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I support this request; the property is P2752. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Taxon bar on cywiki

I've copied over to cywiki the relevant template, and tried here, yet domething's missing. Any ideas please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Use same colour as taxobox?

First of all, thanks for this useful template. Just a minor proposition: would it be possible to use the same background colour as {{Taxobox}} for the taxon bar? This would make a taxon article begin and end with the same colour and thus provide a more uniform layout. Tylototriton (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bacdive

Can we add Bacdive ID to the template (d:P2946)? See also this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology#Place_to_integrate_scientific_database_links_in_species_articles_of_bacteria --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tobias1984: If you're comfortable working with templates (I'm not), be BOLD and add it. There's also a request above to add d:P2752. Wikidata has added some additional properties relevant to this template since it was last edited in February: d:P2455 d:P2794, d:P2833 and d:P3088, it would be good to have those supported as well (and you might want to get P2946 on the property list at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy). Oh, and there's some other new properties at d:Template:Taxonomy_properties. Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: I tried adding it, but it shows up differently on Escherichia coli and Template:Taxonbar/testcases. Will check later if that is some caching issue beyond the page cache. In general I think it would make it easier to edit these templates, if more of the logic would be in specialized Lua modules. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: I'm not quite sure out what's going on. Either "db=bacdive" or "id={{{bacdive|}}}" needs to be told somehow to produce a link to BacDive. It looks like that might be accomplished through Template:Taxonbar/Link, but I'm not able to parse what going on there (except maybe something needs to be changed in Wikidata)? Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@MCEllis: Can you take a look. I don't want to make it worse. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: The BacDive label was missing in Template:Taxonbar/Label, so I've added it: [1]. You could move it so it can be displayed before or after certain identifiers by default. Korg (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Korg: Thanks a lot! I think the sorting is fine at the moment. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the template relies on there being language links for the article in Wikidata. So an article like Philodromus aureolus as of now doesn't find any identifiers in Wikidata unless |from=Q1313508 is added. (See the documentation here for #property: which actually retrieves the information.) If I'm right, this needs to be explained in the template documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Wikidata item to link to en.wiki also works to bring in the IDs (with no watchlist change, as you've noted). Newly created en.wiki articles won't have a Wikidata link immediately. Linking the Wikidata item in the taxonbar at en.wiki seems redundant when the Wikidata->en.wiki link will be created sooner or later. Plantdrew (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Version to allow Wikidata identifiers to be chosen rather than removed

In the sandbox at the moment there's a version which by setting |auto=no suppresses all the automatically added identifiers from Wikidata unless they are explicitly chosen, as opposed to the default behaviour of automatically adding identifiers from Wikidata unless they are suppressed. Thus when placed on Araneus diadematus:

{{taxonbar/sandbox|wsc-sp=014834}} →

{{taxonbar/sandbox|eol=no|gbif=no|itis=no|ncbi=no|zoobank=no|plazi=no|wsc-sp=014834}} →

{{taxonbar/sandbox|auto=no|faunaeuropaea=yes|wsc-sp=014834}} →

Are there any objections to making this version live? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No objections here to enabling your sandbox version. As I'm sure you're aware, I've been recently been embracing use of taxonbar. I know you had some objections previously, and I'm curious about where you stand now. If Wikidata were to begin harvesting identifiers from World Spider Catalog, would want to continue entering them into Taxonbar manually? Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm still sceptical about the value of {{taxonbar}}. My objections continue to be:
  • Many of the databases that get links contain no useful information at all and wouldn't pass the requirements to be included as external links. For example, EoL gets included, yet would not count as a reliable source, and often its information comes from Wikipedia so it's circular.
  • One or more of the databases may have been used as references in the article, so would not be acceptable as external links.
  • For many groups, one underlying database has been used as the source for others, which are then redundant. For example, what's the point of including WCSP and The Plant List for a species in a family in which TPL's data was obtained from WCSP?
  • Picking up databases automatically from Wikidata can mean that no editor here has checked and approved the link. For example, right now, the taxon bar at Philodromus aureolus has no identifiers picked up from Wikidata. But if and when Wikidata changes, links will appear without any approval here and without the change appearing on anyone's watchlist. I just don't like that.
  • The set of databases included is arbitrary, depending on what has so far been put into Wikidata, which itself seems to depend on what can easily be extracted rather than what is most useful.
I would prefer the default behaviour to be as the sandbox "auto=no". However, editors clearly don't share my views and are adding the template to articles with all the default identifiers showing. So for spiders, for example, I want to be able to add WSC, at least until it gets into Wikidata, and also make it easier to remove identifiers which link to databases that just reproduce WSC or Wikipedia.
There won't be a problem with a manual identifier parameter if the database appears in Wikidata; the templates have to be changed to pick up the identifier from Wikidata and would then be changed to ignore the manual parameter values. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. In response to your first point, potentially crappy external links are getting added to Wikipedia anyway. {{EOL}} has 3221 transclusions and that doesn't include manually created external EOL links (which I see frequently). On the second point, databases may diverge. WCSP gets updated, TPL doesn't (the word on the street is that TPL won't be seeing future updates; all further development will be in World Flora Online, which will be live (with a limited dataset) in a few months). I suppose there's no point to citing TPL or ITIS for anything as they are based on aggregating other datasets which could be cited directly (I think this may go for WoRMS as well)? 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I certainly agree on the pointlessness of citing databases that are based on aggregating other databases that are themselves cited. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

World Checklist of Selected Plant Families ID in Wikidata

Wikidata now has WCSPF ID (P3591). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Linking to cross project wikiproject

Hello template writers, and @MCEllis:. As was brought up in a bot request to add this to thousands of articles, I'm a bit concerned about giving readers a link to a corss-project wikiproject - as a reader I may click on the header to see what a "Taxon" identifier is - and expect to be see encyclopedic content or at the least a help page; not end up in another projects wikiproject page. I'm all for supporting wikiprojects, but they are normally done on talk pages, not in articles. This is not a show stopper - but want to have a short discussion. @Tobias1984: as well due to the BRFA. — xaosflux Talk 19:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So am I understanding correctly that your concern is that the "Taxon Identifiers" link goes to Wikidata's WikiProject Taxonomy? I think it would be better if that link targeted a help page explaining what the taxonbar template does (i.e., following the model of {{Authority control}}, where the title links to a help page). Plantdrew (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
We often link to other projects with templates like {{Sister project links}}, {{Commons}}, {{Wikisource}}, {{Wiktionary}}, {{Wikivoyage}}, ... I do not think it is a problem & is even preferable, as long as we clearly indicate that it is another project. Peaceray (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a strong worry - just want to make sure this template has broad degree of support before it gets lots of transclusions, I try to think from the point of view of a non-editing reader - how will this impact them - will sending them to wikidata be useful? — xaosflux Talk 02:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe identifiers, or identifiers used in taxonomy should have a Wikipedia entry that we could link to. It would be interesting to know what people expect when clicking on that link. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Such an article could be helpful and a (for the wikiproject see....) link would be ok. I'm not going to hold up the bot request on this, as the template can evolve as-is -- but wanted to make sure the community has a chance to review. — xaosflux Talk 15:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think taxonbar is a big mistake. It links to sites that just copy us; it links to out-of-date sites; it fails to link automatically to the most important taxonomy databases for many groups of organisms; it often duplicates references and see also items. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: TFD is right over there - I'll hold the bot request for another day in case you want to file a TFD (and if so then for the duration of the TFD). — xaosflux Talk 15:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I'm not arguing for deleting the template; I know that others think it useful. But I do strongly object to it being added by a bot. For many groups, it currently lacks the most important links, and includes ones that just duplicate Wikipedia. Added manually, it is much better – for example, a link to the World Spider Catalog can be added for spider articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Copied to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BacDiveBot . — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm late to this; and wish I had seen it earlier. As with {{Authority control}}, the primary utility of the template is not the inks to other sites, but the disambiguating value of the IDs themselves. The links serve to verify that disambiguation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hide when empty

Can we make this template behave as {{Authority control}} does, and be invisible when there are no values to display? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A good idea. The easiest way would be to re-implement in Lua; that's how {{Authority control}} manages it. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

The taxonbar template very clearly appears to be broken somehow. It is no longer functioning as it once did and it doesn't appear there were any changes to the template itself anytime recently to cause this break. GRIN appears to be the only part of the taxonbar functioning as it used to. A fix that should work is changing the code in the template for all the other fields to match GRIN since that part is functional. Jeanjung212 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The testcases page seems to work. What exactly is broken? When did it break? @MCEllis might have more insight into what went wrong. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The taxonbar (currently looks like this http://i.imgur.com/m8dQkCB.png) displayed like this before: http://i.imgur.com/Rm81tSa.png it can still be viewed in the google cache as well as few as 3 weeks ago https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y7XXc-1dFgYJ:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Taxonbar , if you compare it with the current template display, the only portion working the same as it did before is the GRIN value. GRIN seems to be using different code in the template than the other sections:
{{#ifeq:{{{grin|}}}|no||{{#if: {{If empty |{{#property:P1421|from={{{from|}}}}} |{{{grinurl|}}}}}|*[[Germplasm Resources Information Network|GRIN]]:{{nbsp}}[{{trim|{{If empty |{{#property:P1421|from={{{from|}}}}} |{{{grinurl|}}}}}}} {{trim|{{str right|{{If empty |{{#property:P1421|from={{{from|}}}}} |{{{grinurl|}}}}}|{{strfind short |{{If empty |{{#property:P1421|from={{{from|}}}}} |{{{grinurl|}}}}}|?}}+3}}}}]}}}}
Compared to the code for the others:
{{Taxonbar/Link|db=bhl|id={{{bhl|}}}|P=P687|from={{{from|}}}}}
This code pulls from Template:Taxonbar/Link which pulls from Template:Taxonbar/Label neither of which have been edited in the last few weeks. It seems to me that the easiest fix would be to replace the other lines of code in the template with the functional GRIN line with the correct values, or if less work and more efficient, edit the Template:Taxonbar/Link code so that it functions in the same way as the code for GRIN. Please let me know if more clarification is needed. I'm not a coder but I can attempt to spend time to find a solution if that is needed, it'll probably take me alot longer than someone who is practiced at editing template code here though. Thankyou for your time. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
We should probably just copy the Authority control module and change to use a module instead. That's much easier to trivially update. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that this edit to {{URL}} is what is responsible for the change in taxonbar display. |2= in {{URL}} is deprecated, but the parameter is used on at least 18672 pages (which doesn't count transclusions from other templates such as taxonbar), and removing support for the parameter is messing up displays on other pages (e.g. in (10115) 1992 SK, see the unformatted URL following "Summary figures at"). If |2= is not to be used, instances of it need to be replaced before support is removed entirely.

As far as taxonbar goes, if there is a better way to display the URLs that doesn't involve calling {{URL}}, I'm all for it. But the removal of support for |2= ought to be reversed for now. Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I went ahead and reverted the change to {{URL}} since, as you said, it was widely used. However, since it is a depreciated parameter, we should move away from using it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done I had to create a new template, {{Wikidata URL}}, to handle the malformed URLs returned by Wikidata ({{URL}} has a built-in fix for these). However, the template has now been updated to not use {{URL}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Thanks for working on this. Template:Taxonbar/Link is displaying an error message now, although as far as I can tell, Taxonbar itself is working just fine. Plantdrew (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: I'm pretty sure it was showing that error before I made the changes as well, but as you said, it works in the parent template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Oh, you're right. It does appear that the error message predates your edit. Thanks again for fixing this. Plantdrew (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

iNaturalist Identifier Request

After creating the Taxonbar template I began spending most of my free time contributing to data on iNaturalist. Now that iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151) has been added to Wikidata taxon pages I hope they can be added to Taxonbar, by adding this line of code to the main template:

-->{{Taxonbar/Link|db=inat|id={{{inat|}}}|P=p3151|from={{{from|}}}}}<!--

Examples:

--MCEllis (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Folks, thank you all for maintaining this template and defending its use when necessary, especially on plant pages. I commend @Plantdrew:, @Ahecht: and others for their work on this. As you have noticed, I have been inactive on Wikipedia since making this template as I have little free time these days. I agree with many criticisms of this template, including that it really should be rewritten in Lua, though I'm not sure anyone with the knowledge has the time to do it, I certainly do not know Lua. However, WikiProject Taxonomy has made it absolutely clear in their message logs that they do not want to be linked to from this template. I do not have editing privileges on this template, so I am no longer able to contribute. But I am making a very genuine and serious request to remove the link to WikiProject Taxonomy. I would prefer to replace the link with a link to the species' Wikidata page.

Ex: Rudbeckia hirta's "Taxon identifiers" link would link to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2532820. I am open to discussion. MCEllis (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Taxonomy shouldn't be linked. The Wikidata item is already linked in the sidebar (in a consistent place across every article on a taxon, regardless of whether it has a Taxonbar). I think it would be better if "Taxon identifiers" linked to a help page, Help:Taxon identifiers, the way {{Authority control}} links to Help:Authority control. It might also be useful if the help link was displayed with the Wikidata item following; e.g. "Taxon identifiers (via Wikidata item Q2532820)". I'm not sure that hiding a Wikidata link in Taxon identifiers with no further explanation is the best solution. Plantdrew (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This brings up the "What about the Wikidata identifier" question. I sincerly believe the general public does not click on links on the left of every wikipedia page, and therefore has no idea there is a wikidata page for every taxon, let alone every page. I propose adding Wikidata: Q2532820 as the very first entry in taxonbar (for R. hirta in this case), and removing the "Taxon identifiers" link to WikiProject Taxonomy entirely until a Help page is written by someone with enough time on their hands. --MCEllis (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Eventually we should just copy all lua coding and help pages of Authority control and re-write them for Taxonbar, of course this has been suggested multiple times, so I simply agree with most ideas discussed about the two templates. --MCEllis (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I mocked up a modified version that includes a link to Wikidata and links to Help:Taxon identifiers (just a first draft) at {{Taxonbar/sandbox}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Thank you! I suggest this format for the Wikidata link: Wd: Q7061732
Since Wikidata isn't technically a taxonomic database, I instead styled the link like the WorldCat link in {{Authority control}}. I'm not sure the item ID is important to include since, again, it's not a taxonomic identifier. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable calling Taxonbar a bar of "taxonomic identifiers", nor did I want it limited solely to taxonomic databases, but rather wanted a bar of "taxon identifiers" for important databases in general. The Wikidata ID is absolutely a taxon identifier for Wikidata, rather than a taxonomic identifier. For consistency sake I think it would look much better and be more useful as Wd: Q7061732. Is iNaturalist a taxonomic database? Not really, but I feel a database of observations/distributions is just as important as a scientifically accurate taxonomic database. The same would apply to eBird and several others. Is USDA PLANTS a reliable taxonomic database? Certainly not. --MCEllis (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the Wikidata identifier?

I think Taxonbar is missing an important identifier -- the Wikidata identifier for the taxon! I think this will be easier to find that looking up "Wikidata item" in the sidebar, and will encourage users looking at the Taxonbar and seeing a missing identifier to immediately go to Wikidata and add it in. This could also be an "Edit" or "See all data" link, but I like the idea of Wikidata being recognized as its own identifier generator: I for one would like to see more resources using Wikidata identifiers alongside ITIS/EOL/GBIF IDs! -- Gaurav (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the idea of adding a direct link to the Wikidata item in the Taxon bar. I think however it should be set apart from the external, non-Wikimedia identifiers. An "edit" or "Wikidata item" link is an option. Tylototriton (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I very strongly support a link to the Wikidata page, and possibly showing the identifier. -- MCEllis (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This is already included in the sidebar in multiple places. I don't see a need for a third link (and one not automatically added by the core software). --Izno (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Overhall - Presenting Module:Taxonbar with Lua.

I happened to stumble upon gl:Módulo:Taxonbar when I was checking out how other wikipedias were using the Taxonbar template. Although I am not yet fully familiar with Lua, the code seems fairly easy to follow and nearly identical to Module:Authority_control, which is the direction most of us would like to see Taxonbar move to. So did some quick translations and came up with Module:Taxonbar. I consider this module pre-alpha since I have not worked with the code, I only translated. They still need work and community feedback.

Basic use samples

As you can see it's very heavily on links, especially in Peach for example. It should be much easier to add more identifier fields. The proof-of-concept code currently does not accept any parameters that I know of, we need to address concerns of @Peter coxhead: and others regarding link quality and quantity. Since this is en.wikipedia perhaps limit to english databases?

Thoughts @Plantdrew: and @Ahecht:? I still have virtually no time to work on this, but felt this Lua code seemed promising. All the best, --MCEllis (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there should be multiple taxonbar templates. If Taxonbar2 is just being used for testing Lua implementation with a goal of eventually bringing that code into the main Taxonbar template, that's fine. I don't understand the point of having the template populate categories such as Category:Wikipedia articles with EOL identifiers If there is a point to that category, it should probably include Category:Encyclopedia of Life ID not in Wikidata as a subcategory.
I do think non-English databases should be excluded. I wonder whether switches specific to particular groups of organisms could be used to suppress display of certain databases. For example, WoRMS and Zoobank sometimes show up in taxonbars for plant articles; I don't see the point of including these links. Another case where conditional supression of links might be desirable is with higher taxa and links to regional database; if a regional database covers only the regionally appropriate genera in a family, I'm not sure it should be linked from a Wikipedia article that covers the family globally. Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with removing the Taxonbar2 template, as you say, the intent is to eventually replace most of the code in Taxonbar with Module:Taxonbar, rather than adding yet another template. The module can just be invoked for testcases rather than being applied onto pages before it is ready for primetime. The last thing I need is to get locked out of a template again before it is a finished product. We really could use more help from Lua developers on this effort to implement some of the ideas that would make Taxonbar more practical to maintain and more useful to readers. --MCEllis (on mobile) 22:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I also agree there is no need that I can see for the categories, it was an artifact from Authority Control code, I will remove it to simplify things. --MCEllis (on mobile) 22:28 (UTC)
I also agree with evenutally replacing the current taxonbar with the updated code along with there being no need for the categories like Authority control generates. Jeanjung212 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Plantdrew's points: non-English databases should be excluded by default, and there needs to be "screening" of databases based on the group of organisms. Ideally it wouldn't be necessary to specify the group manually, but I suspect it will be. Certainly converting to Lua will make it much easier to add the kind of tests/conditionality needed. Sorry, I don't have time to assist right now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead, MCEllis, Plantdrew, and Jeanjung212: To move forward on this, are there any databases in Module:Taxonbar/conf that should be removed? As for screening, shouldn't that be done at the Wikidata level (in other words, if it doesn't make sense to include WoRMS in plant articles, then the WoRMS ID should be removed from the wikidata entry for that plant). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The only database I think is a little odd to have remaining is the IPNI2 Author ID. I also agree that it would be probably preferrable to manage the screening on the wikidata level, I'm just not sure how this would be done effectively when bots sometimes just go through a database and fill it all in. Thanks for all your work on this Ahecht it is greatly appreciated! Jeanjung212 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht, Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, and Jeanjung212: I think it would be great to try to quickly move this further along, there is a great need to migrate to Lua and finally show the links to BugGuide, iNaturalist, LepIndex, and others. I feel the following changes need to be made:
  • CheckedEntirely remove NBN, the link is far too long and only describes UK distribution
  • Checked(by Ahecht)Remove or fix Fauna Europaea links, the website was closed. It seems the new site, fauna-eu.org is not fully functional.
  • Checked(by Ahecht)Remove ARKive or at least remove common name from the displayed identifier string, it is far too long. Capitalization of 'ARKive' and it's Wikipedia entry [c]ould be updated to 'Arkive'.
  • CheckedRemove EPPO, are the site pages / identifier useful?? The site seems to display very little information on species I've searched for.
  • CheckedFix PLANTS being listed twice
--MCEllis (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Could you remove common name and forward slashes from the display of ARKive identifiers? '/eastern-bluebird/sialia-sialis/' would become 'sialia-sialis'. This would save much room, thanks. --MCEllis (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@MCEllis: I updated Module:Taxonbar/conf so that Fauna Europaea won't show up, and I updated the main module so that ARKive names are truncated. I'm not sure why you want to change "ARKive" to "Arkive", as the Wikipedia article for it is at ARKive and they stylize it that way in their image watermarks. I can update it in the module if the article is moved. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Ahecht:,I was confused by their website which seems to mostly be using the "Arkive" styilization, but let's leave it as it is. What is the process we should take to update the Taxonbar template with Sandbox2? Do we need a formal review? I think Module:Taxonbar is much more polished than the current {{taxonbar}} and we should consider rolling it out soon. --MCEllis (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@MCEllis: I'll create a proposal below, and ping the appropriate WikiProjects (at the very least WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Tree of Life, WikiProject Animals, and WikiProject Plants). We should probably get Help:Taxon identifiers out of the draft stage as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we add more sources to the current Taxonbar?

@Ahecht: @Peter coxhead: The current Taxonbar has not been updated since November 26, 2016. ‎While the Module implementation is still on hold, can we please add some of the new sources to the existing Taxonbar code? All that is required is to replace current taxonbar code with {{taxonbar/sandbox3}}. I organized them alphabetically. Taxonbar/Link should probably also be updated, since there is apparently a sandbox version, but perhaps not necessary. Demo of update:

Black capped chickadee: rgb(235,235,210)

Helianthus annuus: {{taxonbar/sandbox3|from=Q171497}} Latrodectus mactans Southern black widow rgb(235,235,210)

I do not have rights to update the template, so I need your help. Thanks.--MCEllis (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Seems sensible to me (and can be reverted if there are any problems or opposition). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There are some databases not included in the template:Taxonbar that are interesting for the general reader and also when writing a new article. I recommend especially "The Australian Faunal Directory" [2]. I use this database all the time, with the necessary precautions, when writing about Australian gastropods. There are several other Australian databases to be found here : [3]. I suppose the Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) could also be useful. JoJan (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@JoJan: As mentioned on your request at d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Archive/2016/09#Australian Faunal Directory, you have to propose a new property at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science for the Australian Faunal Directory (Q2784883) and APNI. I am afraid I have to get going on a trip, but I may be able to help submit the request in about a week if you are unable to.
Please do, as I have no idea how to go about with Wikidata. JoJan (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht:@Peter coxhead: This latest Taxonbar update is very good, do not roll it back, but I did want to let you know of the current bug: on pages such as Brown recluse spider, the World Spider Catalog identifiers are listed twice because they were specified on the page. Perhaps re-work the WSC code so that specified links override the retrieved Wikidata identifier, so that WSC is only displayed once? I also had trouble with Watermelon being blank even though identifiers such as ITIS are specified on the Wikidata entry. This was also a bug with the last version. See Template:Taxonbar/testcases to troubleshoot.--MCEllis (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@MCEllis: detecting and responding to the presence/absence of parameters is easier in Lua, so I'm inclined to wait until conversion to a module is settled before trying to deal with the WSC "bug". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, thanks. --MCEllis (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Switch Taxonbar template to use Module:Taxonbar

Per the suggestions by Peter coxhead and Andy here and Izno here, and discussions with MCEllis, Plantdrew, and Jeanjung212 here, a Lua module has been created to serve as a back-end for {{Taxonbar}}. Switching to the module allows for better parsing of output, more flexibility with input, easier updating as databases are added and removed, and cleaner integration with WikiData.

There are some differences in the output:

The module itself is located at Module:Taxonbar, but all configuration of supported databases is at Module:Taxonbar/conf for easier updating. A sandboxed version of the module-based template is at Template:Taxonbar/sandbox2, and the testcases page at Template:Taxonbar/testcases has been updated to show a comparison of the outputs of the current template and the module-based one.

Are there any comments, suggestions, or requests before the working template is switched over to use the module? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: What do we think about using a table rather than Navbox, so that it can load on mobile? It would be really helpful to my own fieldwork and others. Note that {{Taxobox}} loads on mobile.--MCEllis (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a little less straightforward than proposed, because it would either mean having a table that is too wide to work well on mobile (which is why navbars are hidden in the mobile view in the first place), switching the taxonbar to a vertical list, or detecting whether or not it is on mobile and changing the output accordingly (which I'm not sure how to do from a technical standpoint, and I'm not sure is feasible without modifying the site CSS files). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Here is a sample of Taxonbar that shows up on mobile and resizes to fit small screens, {{User:MCEllis/Template:taxonbar}}:
Taxon identifiers
Also, rather than deleting sources such as EPPO or NBN, or removing the property number from Fauna Europaea, is there a way we can just hide a source from displaying by default while providing a way to enable their display on an individual page? This would allow people to show NBN if it is species of significance to the UK, for example. --MCEllis (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This is fundamentally a navbox and should be treated as such (i.e., it should not load on mobile). --Izno (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Can you elaborate on why it should not load on mobile? If doing so would improve Wikipedia, I do not see substantial reason to exclude displaying this useful field data on mobile. I have had big regrets creating {{taxonbar}} as a navbox after I realized {{taxonids}} displays on mobile.--MCEllis (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
It should act like Template:Authority control for one, and for two: It's a bunch of extra data that mobile users probably neither need nor want. It's a navbox, pure and simple--it takes you to other places than the page you're looking at, and the way we deal with such content is to hide it on mobile. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: It would not be shown to mobile users unless they expand the External Links section of a mobile Wikipedia page. I cite WP:IAR in stating that this update would improve Wikipedia for folks who are out in the field and need to find out more about a species or taxon. It does not need to behave exactly like Template:Authority control, because it needs to actually be helpful for biologists, ecologists, and field work. That is the point of Taxonbar. I don't see why we have to "deal with" Taxonbar in that way.--MCEllis (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Which is no different than T:Authority control. We also are writing a Wikipedia for generalist users, not certain users in specific fields of work. While Wikipedia may be useful to such persons, that's not our goal. --Izno (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
What I just said is different than {{Authority control}}. What do you mean by "Which is no different than T:Authority control:?" Expanding the External Links section of a mobile Wikipedia page does not display {{Authority control}} or other navboxes on mobile at all, that seems appropriate to me for thoes other navboxes, because they do not add value to mobile users. But Taxonbar would add value to the mobile experience. Linking to Bugguide, iNaturalist, PlantList and other sources would be extremely helpful in the field.
Species described by these pages actually live out in the wild and in the field, not like other information linked to by {{Authority control}}, which live in libraries, houses, and businesses. If the community feels it is not appropriate to show Taxonbar to mobile users, then I will propose deleting Taxonbar and moving all of the code to Taxonids. To not allow mobile users to access this extremely useful field data about the living world around them is absurd. Such an arbitary rule stands in the way of sharing knowledge with people who don't spend their whole day sitting at a desk. --MCEllis (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't care strongly either way, and will be happy to go with the consensus, but mobile users can always click the "desktop view" link on the bottom of every page to view templates that are hidden in the mobile front end. Other features that might similarly be helpful in the field, such as categories, are also hidden in the mobile view. We also need to consider performance, as a well populated taxonbar template can have a significant impact on page download size, which is one of the reasons navboxes were hidden on mobile in the first place. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: I will support deploying Module:Taxonbar if you can add the following features to the Module:

Semi-automatically retrieving/adding parameters

I would like to:

  1. retrieve a specific parameter (IUCN id) for a large # of pages, so I can then query the IUCN Red List database for various information, and
  2. add this parameter to the WikiData of pages where this parameter does not exist.

How can I go about doing these?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

At Omiodes asaphombra for example, the taxobar link for "LepIndex" goes to List of natural history museums, which I don't think is intended. It could go to The Global Lepidoptera Names Index or Natural History Museum, London, which maintains LepIndex. I can't change it myself, so I'm just bringing this to the attention of the wizards. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Similar story at Kupea (moth) for "ButMoth", which now goes to List of natural history museums but should probably go to Natural History Museum, London. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where to fix this or if I have the permsissions, but I will note that the link goes to Natural_History_Museum#The_Global_Lepidoptera_Names_Index and Natural History Museum has a redirect to List of natural history museums rather than Natural History Museum, London. User Necrothesp changed the redirect Natural History Museum in July 2017, which might explain the problem. I agree with the anonymous user who reverted the change that someone typing Natural History Museum with capital letters intends the name of the museum, not some generic natural history museum. I think changing the redirect will link the TaxonBar to the Natural History Museum, London, but changing the link to the The Global Lepidoptera Names Index would be better.   Jts1882 | talk  17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed the redirect on the grounds that Natural History Museum is the name of a particular museum and wouldn't be capitalised if meaning a generic natural history museum. This changes the link in the TaxonBar template, at least for now, as I would be surprised if this doesn't trigger an edit war.   Jts1882 | talk  17:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
A {{For|other natural history museums|List of natural history museums}} should satisfy readers and editors alike I think, which I've just added to Natural History Museum, London.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think those changes solve the problem, but they are workarounds. For instance at what links here to Natural History Museum, there are a lot of articles and almost all of them are intended to go to London, but some are not and it would take a while to go through the list and figure out which are which. I've asked for help over at Wikipedia talk:Template editor to see if we can get it done inside the template. Then I'll clean up the links through the redirect at Natural History Museum.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made an edit to Template:Taxonbar/Label so that the link goes directly to The Global Lepidoptera Names Index. It will take the job queue a while to process all the articles, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thank you John, Did you see the one for Kupea (moth) for "ButMoth"? I think that should go to Natural History Museum, London.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: I saw that, but there's nothing in the NHM article that explains "ButMoth" -- John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Good point. Maybe I can create Butterflies and Moths of the World, but I don't usually write articles. With this Zootaxa article and what's available at the website itself, maybe I can do that. My thinking was that with the current redirects, it's going to Natural History Museum, London anyway and that's better than List of natural history museums, but that still makes it difficult to figure out which links at Natural History Museum are correct. I'll think about it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading and SchreiberBike: I removed the ButMoth link to the Natural History Museum, as there is no description of the database there, and left it without a link. According to the database, it was "Last updated 05-Nov-2004" so I'm not sure if it is worth creating a Wikipedia article for an unmaintained database?--MCEllis (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Suppress entries that duplicate data ie Plant List sometimes

The PlantList regex is (gcc|ifn|ild|kew|rjp|tro)-\d+ which if matching the 'tro-' will repeat the Tropicos value if it is present. Where there are taxobar entries for aggregator databases, please suppress the aggregator entry when it would repeat another value. RDBrown (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@RDBrown: Can you show me an example page where the current behavior would be a problem? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you want. --MCEllis (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not a problem, just duplicate data. See for example Zanthoxylum hawaiiense with the list
Wd: Q3005919 EoL: 582218 GBIF: 3190080 GRIN: 320451 iNaturalist: 170403 IPNI: 775764-1 ITIS: 28853 IUCN: 35157 NCBI: 1336650 Plant List: tro-28100540 PLANTS: ZAHA Tropicos: 28100540 ARKive: hawaii-prickly-ash/zanthoxylum-hawaiiense
RDBrown (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, Ahecht, Plantdrew, and Jeanjung212: All, please review Help:Taxon_identifiers. I hope link Taxonbar to this page soon, it is far more informative and desired vs. linking to d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy. I have received numerous comments when I demonstrate Taxonbar that the current link is very confusing to readers and editors.--MCEllis (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think a possible improvement visually or to the flow of the page would be organizing the list of identifiers in the same order as they appear in the example taxonbar above it, also possibly in a table although that is less needed I think. Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The table of identifiers can be sorted alphabetically by parameter or databae. The default sort order (by property id #) can't be replicated with the sort button, as it sorts alphanumerically rather than strictly numerically (4024 thus comes before 586). I think it's important to retain the order by property id #, as that is the order used at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Databases and d:Template:Taxonomy_properties, which makes it easy to check the ids supported by taxonbar against the ids supported by Wikidata. Plantdrew (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This could be fixed by removing the "p" before each displayed property number in the table at Template:Taxonbar/doc#Wikidata taxon identifiers. The problem is that "p586" is a string, not a number, so with the "p" present, the column is sorted in alphanumeric order, not numeric order. However, it might be confusing to see the property ids without the "p". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Jeanjung212 is referring to the order of identifier descriptions on Help:Taxon identifiers page rather than parameter list on Template:Taxonbar/doc, I agree they need to be re-ordered on the Help article - the order that they appear on Taxonbar has been re-ordered since Help:Taxon_identifiers was first written. I'm just a bit too busy right now. --MCEllis (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jeanjung212, Plantdrew, and Peter coxhead: I fixed the order of parameters in the doc and help page. On the documentation page, they are now sorted alphabetically by name in the same order as displayed in Taxonbar AND I also fixed parameter sorting so they can be sorted numerically. Descriptions for the parameters are now generated automatically.--MCEllis (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I reviewed the Help:Taxon_identifiers and it is OK, readable and proper for general public. Wikilinks from Wikipedia should primarily link to Wikipedia. Feel free to replace the link Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy to the Help:Taxon_identifiers. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Snek01, Peter coxhead, and Ahecht: Taxonbar is now updated with the link to the Help:Taxon_identifiers page. MCEllis (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata URL Request

@Ahecht: Thank you for your help on this! Rather than listing the URLs manually in the code, would you be able to incorporate/utilize your {{Wikidata_URL}} template and/or property:P1630 to help prevent linkrot when these database urls change? --MCEllis (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Some identifiers are too long.

@Ahecht: I suggest we leave really long ID's off of Taxonbar, ARKive and IBC have really long identifiers on Eastern bluebird for example. I believe they were left as "ID" to save space.

Not accepting parameters

@Ahecht: I'm a bit confused about why Taxonbar disappears when given parameters (using this module). The code was based on {{Authority Control}}, which accepts parameters just fine.

Purge server cache

Example:

{{Taxonbar/sandbox2 |eol=29121 |bacdive=4907 |gbif=2858200 |itis= 500435 |ncbi=4697}}

Result:

Expected:


Authority control example:

{{Authority control |VIAF=66861474 |LCCN=n/87/142671 |ISNI=0000 0001 0911 2808 |GND=117421863 |SUDOC=090162897 }}

Result: (removed) --MCEllis (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Any idea what might be the problem @JohnBlackburne:?
@MCEllis: I've fixed it in the latest version. I was using an invalid method of copying tables that only worked on arrays, not tables with string indices, so it was never finding the parameters. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Wow, the latest version looks great, thanks!--MCEllis (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Taxonbar/Archive_1&oldid=1152792594"