Template talk:Taxonavigation

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problem in long taxonavs[edit]

Conti, first of all, congratulations for the improvements of the taxonav. I have found a problem: see the Macropodus opercularis category: the taxonav have 11 taxons, and the last one (species) does not appear... The 11 taxons are necessary. Might you to modify the template so that it works correctly? Thank you, good work and greetings, --Pristigaster 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line1, I see the new change, but... now a new minor problem: In "species" appears the word "genus"... See Macropodus opercularis category to verify. Thanks for the work!!!!! --Pristigaster 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fixed now. :) --Conti|✉ 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Fixed bug. Good work!!!! --Pristigaster 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

authority range and italics[edit]

The authority range add to the taxonav is an excellent idea. Please, remove the italic, because in scientific names the italics is only to genus and speces, the authority is without italics. Thanks, partners! --Pristigaster 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. Thanks! --Conti|✉ 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And... ¿authority without bold? ;-) ¿Yes? --Pristigaster 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. :) --Conti|✉ 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

The species format should lead to the page, not a category (which in many/most cases, doesn't exist); thus: ''[[Genus species]]'', not ''[[:Category:Genus species|Genus species]]''. Can someone who knows how to edit this, please change it! - MPF 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the category is because the species category is only one, but pages there can go so far as to be many: a keys page (from other similar species); a sexual dimorphism page; a reproductive process page; diseases page; A page for the images of every subspecies, variety, population or commercial variant; other one for the embryonic development and phases larvarias, etc. That's why it puts itself on the category. For example, the Carassius auratus, the Goldenfish: When there are more photos, there will be able to do dozens of pages, one for every variety (a lot!); others for the larval development; other one for reproduccción; etc. Greetings, --Pristigaster 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

classical / phylogenical classification[edit]

I have a phylosophical problem with the {{Taxonavigation}} template and the plants.
Are we suppose to fill taxonavigation with classical classification or with phylogenical classification(See Morus_alba who has a phylogenical taxonavigation)? Or Both if we can (In which case, we could modify the taxonavigation to give a clue on which classif it is) ?
I think that there is the same problem with the categories: classical, phylogenical or both.
Liné1 07:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you think that I am taking chinese, please let me know and I will go in detail ;-)

I solved that by adding the parameter "classification" that allows to specify which classification the Taxonavigation follows.
You can even have multiple Taxonavigation in the same page
Cheer Liné1 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic and phylogenetic taxonavigations should be used side by side. I think, both informations are sensefull and give chance to greatest consensus (much work) and avoidance of editwars. Greetings Orchi 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I'd prefer APG II, but I have no objection if the by now outdated Cronquist system is provided alongside the APG II system. Teun Spaans 06:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feature request[edit]

The pages I'm working on include both articles and categories with identical scientific names containing the same taxonavigation information. Currently, if a reader is in an article, the name of the matching category is available as a link. However, if a reader is in a category, the name of the article is not available in the same way. Since articles and categories often contain different information, it would be nice if readers of both could navigate back and forth in this manner. Obviously, the Taxonavigation template was designed to help readers navigate categories, but I thought this one exception would not only come in handy, but also encourage editors to create matching articles for the categories. --Jwinius (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the times, there are only categories for upper taxa, and categories+articles for species.
That is why Taxonavigation only allow to navigate to categories.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, but not all. Recently, I made a lot of matching categories and articles for species, but higher taxa are also important. Could it at least be made possible to link names with "[[ ]]" within the taxonavigation template for cases in which a matching article does exist? --Jwinius (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a separate navigation would have to be made and I think it would be a great thing! I wonder if the exiting navigation could easily be transformed by removing the "Category:" and "|" and the duplicate {{{item}}}? My ability to type regexp conversions in text or at a commandline range from not good to next to no ability -- but the template should be somewhat simple to convert. -- carol (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand the problem. You click on the Taxonavigation link. When you are in the category, you click on the article that is always accessible from the category.
You want to avoid one click ?
Liné1 (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example. Start here, Crotalus atrox. See how the current taxon name, Crotalus atrox is also a link in the taxnav? Click on it. You're now taken to the matching category, Category:Crotalus atrox. The taxnav here looks the save, except that the current taxon name is now black (no longer a link). This is the issue. My request is for this to be (or for this to be possible to be) a link back to the article. --Jwinius (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good idea, but difficult to implement.
If Taxon=Current Category name then link to Taxon else link to Taxon cat.
Let me think of how to do that, I am sure I can do it. Liné1 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that commons can seemingly never have enough of is ways to link to articles from categories (galleries since articles are for the wikipedias) possibly the galleries need all of those links to them that the simple subcategorization, the inclusion on many of the image pages, the special little templates that present the stylized and often redundant link ({{See more}}) does not provide and links within the other galleries themselves to each other. With all of that linking to the galleries, if people are not looking at them yet, there might be a problem with the idea of them. However, that is not what this discussion is about and I apologize if none of those links to galleries I mentioned are working the way they should and my words seem a little crass about that. In the information I saw about the template conditionals, I might have read an "ifexists" at this point, I lack the time or inspiration to dig that out of the information at meta or from the archives to see if it is an actual conditional or one that was wished for. If ifexists exists (heh) it might do this. -- carol (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is your technical solution:
In {{Taxonavigation/taxon}}, replace the two "[[:Category:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]" by:
"{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|category:{{lc:{{{2}}}}}|[[{{{2}}}]]|[[:Category:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]}}"
That will do the trick ;-) Liné1 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Now, can somebody with sufficient permissions please implement this and verify that it works? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked those bold non-functional self-links.
Now what about the simpler [[:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||Category:}}{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ?
Or if you want to get fancy:
[[:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Category|{{#ifexist:{{PAGENAME}}||Category:}}|Category:}}{{PAGENAME}}|{{{2}}}]] - that way it only links to the gallery if one exists. Rocket000(talk) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best of all! Now, how do we get somebody, presumably an admin, to actually going to implement this new and fantastic code? --Jwinius (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You already got one. Me. :) I just wanted to hear from you guys first. Rocket000(talk) 22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I may have to tweak it. I'm not sure if you want gallery links for every one that exists or just the last one. Rocket000(talk) 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just the last one. And links are not working now for most of the navigation. -- carol (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it should be fine now. Rocket000(talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I was just writing a bug report for you, but you beat me to it. It's working like a charm now. Thank you very much! :-) Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) No problem. I was using {{PAGENAME}} instead of {{{2}}}. There's one more thing I can do. If it's on a gallery page, would you want to link to galleries instead (if they don't exist it will default to the category link)? Rocket000(talk) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting: then the taxnav could be used to navigate either category or gallery pages depending on the type the reader is on. Crossing over to a higher taxon of the other page type would then require two clicks on that taxon name (once to get to the high taxon and once to cross over). That doesn't sound like a bad deal. However, if you were on a gallery page for a species and many of the gallery pages for the higher taxa were missing, would those links then show up in red, black, or blue (with blue linking to the matching category pages)? In the last case, only a click or a mouse-over would reveal whether it was a link to gallery or a category page. How could we solve this without letting the taxnav become too unpredictable? Mind you, I would not be opposed to sometimes seeing red instead of black, as I think this would encourage editors to create matching gallery/article categories when these are missing. --Jwinius (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) It would only be red if neither the gallery or the category exists. The red link would point to the non-existent category. These can easily be hidden or unlinked or whatever you want but I think a red link would be the best in this case. Especially with categories since they may not even be empty. Basically, the logic is: if a gallery exists, link to it, else link to the category (regardless of it's existence) and do this only for gallery pages. (Note: the last link will override this and always link to the opposite namespace). Rocket000(talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems like a good idea. Let's try it out! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's live. Rocket000(talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That was also a definite improvement. I've just been working on a series of gallery articles, e.g. Crotalinae, and traversing them all now, along with the matching categories, is suddenly that much easier. Thanks, Rocket000! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Now repay me by making more galleries! ;-) Rocket000(talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sir, Sir! ;-) --Jwinius (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much to "try out". Whatever galleries/categories it is used on should automatically reflect the changes the first time anyone clicks on them (I think that the wiki pages get rerendered and I might be wrong).

And now a question not about the template but about the collection of taxonomy images that are here. In your opinion, is it helpful to know what images are still needed? -- carol (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, I don't think that will be a problem. Any single click in the taxvav will result in a change. If you're referring to the two clicks I mentioned earlier (01:27, 3 September 2008), that is a special case: the first click is to move up by one or more taxa, the second click is to cross over from gallery to category (or vice versa). But, that is a possibility when you have a taxnav that can navigate both galleries and categories and switches to the other type only when you click on the name of the current taxon.
Regarding your second issue, are you suggesting something like this? If so, I personally would not mind seeing that kind of information... just as long as it follows the particular taxonomy that I have come to work with. And therein lies the problem: if people can't agree on which taxonomy to use for the particular group of plants or animals they work on, then plotting out much of the taxonomy here in advance will perhaps sooner lead to disagreement. I don't mind discussing this issue, but few people seem to be interested, let alone understand the arguments. --Jwinius (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like Category:Species needing images. There is a template that applies the category if the category doesn't yet contain any images or a gallery. I have been working with the plant taxonomy -- building the three trees that the wikis use has actually made the work to be more interesting. Once the templates are made, a bot can make the rest of the genus categories and then I am uncertain about which species should be made or not, perhaps species that have articles at the wikipedias that need images. -- carol (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. You've obviously been at this for a while! I picked a random link, Category:Actinoseris stenophylla, out of the category you indicated and I see that it contains 3 taxnavs! You know, maybe it would be easier to tell them apart if they had different background colors. Anyway, your approach makes my snake taxonomy look trivial. However, what do you do with a gallery page for a taxon in which the different taxonomies disagree about the contents? --Jwinius (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this mostly unrelated taxonomy talk to User_talk:Jwinius#differing taxonomy -- carol (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and now perhaps galleries in green and categories in blue letters or reverse. (I did't read the whole discussion, but I find a good result). Orchi (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about doing something like that so people can easily tell if the link is to a category or a gallery. I don't think it will be an issue but changing the link color will be "expensive". I'll have to use #ifexists on every link in order to keep red links red. See {{Ifexistcolor}} for idea on how this works. Too many of these things on a page will make them stop working. Rocket000(talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds risky to me. We could also try changing the background color instead, or the color of the rest of the text. Then again, it might be a good idea to use different background colors for other purposes (see my reply to CarolSpears above). --Jwinius (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there is a bug: Look at Platanus x hispanica, the Taxonavigation genus link goes to the article Platanus, not to the cat Platanus. That is bad because there are really few genus articles.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's no bug; it's working as intended. The taxnav now works as a gallery browser as well as a category browser depending on the type of page you start with. However, if no gallery page is available, it defaults to the matching category page. Alternatively, if you're browsing categories and no category or gallery page is available for a certain taxon, the taxnav shows a red link (to create a gallery page). So, if you're on Platanus x hispanica and want to get to Platanus, you can do two things:
Pretty neat, huh? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now all links to galleries are a different shade blue. I got the color from the toolbar links at the top but I'm open to other suggestions. I realized since I have to check for the existence of galleries in the first place (to decide whether or not to link to them), I can change their color without worrying about coloring red links blue since there won't ever be any red gallery links. Rocket000(talk) 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. The color is a little subtle, but it's useful. However, if you're on a gallery page, it's unfortunately misleading to see another different-shaded blue link (another gallery page) and click on it only to find out that it's actually a redirect to the matching category page. I guess we'll just have to fix that by turning those redirects into gallery pages too. But, I'm nitpicking. Keep up the good work! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to replace?[edit]

In the main template: 

{{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{2|}}}|{{{1}}}: '''{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|genus|species=''[[:Category:{{{2}}}{{!}}{{{2}}}]]''|[[:Category:{{{2}}}{{!}}{{{2}}}]]}}'''}}

with: 

{{Taxonavigation/taxon|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}}}

? Rocket000(talk) 00:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APWebsite[edit]

Some wikiuser create categories and articles not following APG II, but the modified version (let us say post APG II) provided by APWebsite.
This is the reason for the parameter classification=APWebsite of {{Taxonavigation}}.
But currently classification=APWebsite generates a link to APWebsite. To make thing more symetric with other classification values, I created {{Taxonavigation/APWebsite}} (like {{Taxonavigation/Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy}}).
Could some admin modify {{Taxonavigation/classification}} to replace "APWebsite = the url" by "APWebsite = [[Template:Taxonavigation/APWebsite| APWebsite]]'''"?
 Thank you

I think that there needs to be an article for this. -- carol (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is APWebsite. Liné1 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authority[edit]

I spend most of my time working on categorizing the images of fossil and extinct taxa and I have noticed something that I think chould be adjusted to make the template better. On a vast majority of the taxa that I have added the TN template to the authority parameter always blends in with the taxon name eg.

Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872

On the Machairodontinae page the name is black so it blends into the authority name Gill, 1872. This becomes worse on pages where the authority name is given but the year is not. To alleviate the confusion this can cause someone not familiar with the format used I have been adding <small></small> to the taxa I have worked with lately. Thus the template looks this way:

Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872

Would it be possible to add this or a similar parameter to the authority field to distinguish it from the taxa field? --Kevmin (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing but I was afraid to change it after looking at the history and seeing that it was purposely changed to match the name. If we do change it, we have some options (keeping in mind that the last taxon is bold and usually linking to itself):
  1. Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872
     5 - small and bold, like above
  2. Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872
     5 - small
  3. Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872
     5 - small-caps
  4. Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872
     5 - small small-caps, bold
  5. Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872
     5 - gray
...and other variations. I think I like either 1 or 4 the best. Rocket000 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone cares, my opinion is 4 then 3. And both of those look really really nice. -- carol (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like both options, If forced to choose I would go for 1 then 4--Kevmin (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't play if there is nothing to win ;-) Seriously 1 then 4 also. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You win not having to use this:
Subfamilia: Machairodontinae Gill, 1872
 5 - red Comic Sans on lime background, dashed fuchsia border, big
XD Rocket000 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YIKES!!!! ;) --Kevmin (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's just small for now. Let's work with this for awhile and then maybe consider small-caps, because 4 keeps looking better and better to me. Rocket000 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rocket000! It looks great. --Kevmin (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that making it gray would be nice but the template did not seem to accept more than one special style parameter and there is a chance that those will also be linked to either category or gallery here. -- carol (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category rename requests for categories using this template[edit]

To make it easier to find categories with {{Taxonavigation}} in the subcategories of Category:Requested moves, I added a link to CatScan. The oldest ones are in Category:Requested moves (21+ days). -- User:Docu at 13:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

If you look at Template:Genus you can see that there's a way of disambiguating category names. Does this template (Taxonavigation) have a similar mechanism? I don't see it, if it does. Can this feature be added to the template? - dcljr (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried awhile ago and couldn't figure out a way to do it. The template would have to be totally rewritten, I think. I forgot what the main reason was so I'll give it another shot (when I'm not so tired). It would be something like what I used in {{Lepidoptera}} or {{Coleoptera}}. Rocket000 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there is no use for disambiguation system. Use {{Taxonovigation|cat (disamb)|.... Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was talking about making it so the (...) part is hidden. I can't get it to work anyway though. Rocket000 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New feature[edit]

Now whenever you enter "incertae sedis" (case insensitive) for any rank, it will not be linked. What do you think? Rocket000 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Why not having ? also transformed in 'Incertae Sedis:
{{#switch:{{lc:{{{2}}}}}
|incertae sedis|? = ''Incertae Sedis''
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't sure what case to go with initially, so I made it output {{{2}}} instead of a hard-coded "incertae sedis" (meaning the case will be whatever the user uses). I'm not sure which is correct. I've always wrote it lowercase, but I continually see it as you wrote it. "Incertae sedis" is another possible form. I added "?" to be unlinked as well, but I have it resulting in itself too, just unlinked. Rocket000 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|?=''Incertae sedis'' would be lovely. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in {{Taxonavigation}}[edit]

Hello,
I am Rocket000's padawan and as my friend seems gone for a while, I prepared a change for this template.
If you look at Category:Aves, Category:Accipitridae and Category:Neophron percnopterus you will see that they share a large part of their Taxonavigation.
My idea is to modify {{Taxonavigation}} to allow to include the first part of the Taxonavigation through a include= parameter.
You can look at User:Liné1/sandbox for an example.
Could you simply:

Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in {{Taxonavigation}} 2[edit]

{{Edit request}}

I would like to replace {{Taxonavigation}} third line (involving {{{include|}}}) with {{TaxonavigationIncluded}} second line (also involving {{{include|}}}).
The purpose is only to add |autodoc=no.
Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in {{Taxonavigation}} 3[edit]

{{Edit request}}

I would like to replace {{Taxonavigation}} third line:
-->{{#if:{{{include|}}}|{{template:{{{include}}}|autodoc=no }} }}<!--
by
-->{{#if:{{{include|}}}|{{template:{{{include}}}|autodoc=no|autocat=no|classification={{{classification|}}} }} }}<!--
Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in {{Taxonavigation}} 4[edit]

{{Edit request}}

I would like to improve {{Taxonavigation}} include= parameter

Could an admin simply copy {{Liné1SandBoxTemplate}} content into {{Taxonavigation}} ?

Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor spelling correction[edit]

{{Edit request}}The part of the template stating {{Template:{{{include}}}}} does not exists should be {{Template:{{{include}}}}} does not exist. HYanWong (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. It is frenglish ;-)
We need to find an Admin to solve the misspelling. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only French user do this wrong although it seems to be a nasty trap. ✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 18:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should you use {{Taxonavigation}} on gallery pages?[edit]

User_talk:Dysmorodrepanis#Taxonav_can_only_be_used_in_Categories.3F argues that this template shouldn't be used on gallery pages. I've been relying on the fact that it is often used on properly classified gallery pages. If he is right, it's a potential problem for me, and would seem to conflict with #Feature_request above. HYanWong (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. either way, could it be made clear on the documentation page whether this template is for use only on categories, or on both categories and galleries? I guess it should also be emphasised that it is NOT for use on File: pages. HYanWong (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Cheers 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What to do for categories or galleries with "wikified" taxa names[edit]

I've just seen Scilla_(Asparagaceae), and I doubt this is the only case where a taxon name needs to be different from the accepted nomenclature to make it disambiguous. Is there any means of providing {{Taxonavigation}} with a correct name for the taxonomic level, but linked to the (longer, more complex named) wiki page. Perhaps it is acceptable to do something like: {{Taxonavigation| include=Asparagaceae (APG)| Subfamilia|Scilloideae| Genus|[[Scilla (Asparagaceae)|Scilla]]| authority=[[Carl von Linné|L.]] (1753)}}

But I can't get this to work. If there is a solution, perhaps this can be noted on the doc page?HYanWong (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend.
The Taxonavigation is here to help you navigate through categories containing the taxons media.
(Unlike a Taxobox meant to describe a classification with only the taxon as a purpose.)
For that reason:
  • Taxonavigation should not contain red links (ranks that have no category even if they are important in the classification)
  • Taxonavigation displays real categories name and the desambiguation part " (Asparagaceae)" is not hidden.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Granted that Taxonavigation is meant for navigation rather than classification, so missing ranks are (quite rightly) omitted, even if important. Nevertheless, there's an argument for allowing the correct taxon name to be displayed (without the disambiguation part) as long as the link is to the correct category or gallery? But maybe I'm letting my requirements for a nicely labelled taxonomy to get in the way of the main purpose of {{Taxonavigation}}. It's a shame that galleries and categories on commons don't have an included template for a systematic Taxobox. Is the long-term intention to include a 'proper' taxonomy from WikiData? HYanWong (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that commons is not an encyclopedy.
The information we provide here is not for a classic readers but for person looking for media.
The only reason why they let me add {{Taxonavigation}}, {{Taxa}}, IUCN: Taxonavigation (old web site) () is because it let me prove that my categories are correctly named.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in {{Taxonavigation}} 5[edit]

{{Edit request}}

I would like to improve {{Taxonavigation}} by using lua.

Could an admin simply copy {{Taxonavigation/sandbox}} content into {{Taxonavigation}} ?

Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Changes in {{Taxonavigation}}[edit]

{{Edit request}}

I improved the lua module under {{Taxonavigation}}.
Now the template does not need lua function 'titleFromTaxonavigation' anymore.

Could an admin simply remove the line containing 'DISPLAYTITLE' from {{Taxonavigation}} code ?

Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvment in {{Taxonavigation}}[edit]

{{Edit request}}

I improved {{Taxonavigation}} detection of bad parameters by calling the new template {{Incorrect biology template usage}}.

Could an admin simply copy the code of template:Taxonavigation/sandbox to template:Taxonavigation ?

Thanks in advance Liné1 (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Awesome! Thank you! ~riley (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we rewrite this template to take Wikidata parameter?[edit]

Ideally all we need is to call {{Taxonavigation|Wikidata=Q.....}} the way we did for {{Authority control}}, {{City}}, and {{Creator/sandbox}} (not live yet). --Jarekt (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jarekt:
There are many reason why this is not easy:
  • {{Taxonavigation}} is not a taxobox.
    It shows the categories tree leading to the current category.
    For example, there should not be any red link (if wikidata manages family, subfamily, tribes, subtribes, subsubtribe, genus, subgenus for a species, when we have only one picture, we will only create family, genus, species cat. Not more)
  • Also, you are certainly aware that for a taxon, there are different classifications. Wikidata and Wikicommons do not follow the same classification/sources.
    We had the same issue with wikispecies.
  • 65.000 category/gallery have no wikidata link. If you are interested, you can help me on that
  • Most categories are linked to Wikidata Category Item. Those item have no taxonomic information. Only when they have a property P301 (category's main topic) can we find taxonomic information in the associate Wikidata Taxon Item.
  • Not all Wikidata Taxon Item have taxonomic information
So before changing {{Taxonavigation}}, we need to improve the connection between wikicommons and wikidata (for biology only).
If you are interested in working on that, just tell me, I have tools
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in helping out but I do not think I can devote a whole lot of time before I finish some other "projects" I started. I just added 40k BugGuide taxon ID (P2464) to Wikidata after I discoveded this wonderfull website when trying to ID some photographs of mine. I am also in a middle of uploading and categorizing Category:Photographs by Judy Gallagher, thousands of great macro photographs of well ID-ed insects and spiders mostly from US. As a part of this effort I was running into an issue of creating new categories which I found to be quite time consuming, especially if none of the other categories have {{Taxonavigation}} template. Doing {{Taxonavigation|Wikidata=Q.....}} would have been so much faster.
  • I agree that step number one is a better connection between Commons and Wikidata. I noticed that there are 2200k taxons on Wikidata and 100k of them have links to Commons. There are also 172k categories on Commons transcluding module:Taxonavigation so at least 72k categories could be linked from Wikidata. We also have 72k images associated with items without category links (see examples). Some of those categories might exist and some might not. I think we should add categories to Commons if we have an image of a given taxon and if an item for that taxon exist. But it might not be feasible to create a whole bunch of categories here if we have to hand-curate {{Taxonavigation}} template. But, yes lets start with adding Commons category (P373) to wikidata taxon items. I can also add links going the other way.
  • I saw your requests for bot runs on Wikidata. You can do a lot of it by yourself without a bot run when you use quick_statements. That what I was using.
  • About differences between Commons / Wikidata / Wikispecies. I have no opinion on a subject as I am not a biologist. However it would be much easier if we follow the same approach or follow several parallel approaches. Wikidata's this zoological name is coordinate with (P2743) allows parallel classifications structures.
--Jarekt (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies[edit]

I need subspecies in the Taxonavigation. See for instance:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sisymbrium_austriacum_subsp._chrysanthumRasbak (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rasbak
There you have it: [1]
BR 08:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not suited for viruses[edit]

In virus taxonomy all official ranks (i.e. species and above, not domain) are italic. Also there's a rank of realm, which is currently not supported in this box. The param authority is not applicable to virus taxonomy. --Markus Prokott (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Taxonavigation&oldid=708103288"