Jump to content

Template talk:Taxobox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

[edit]

Change the NZTCS (New Zealand Threat Classification System) images and parameters to the new ones adopted c. 2021/2022 (formally recommended 2019). This includes a new classification replacing 'Recovering' called 'Nationally Increasing' (where 'NI' is under 'Threatened' in the position where 'D' used to be and 'D' under 'At Risk' where 'R' used to be). I have created and uploaded the icons to Commons, and they can be found https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Status_NZTCS_summary here under the '2022' column. This includes NT, DD, NU, Rel, D, NI, NV, NE, NV, and EX. Please also change the corresponding image in the template documentation to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Status_2019_NZTCS.svg this one. Please see Wikipedia:Conservation_status#New_Zealand:_NZTCS for more information on this, including a source to these changes (the 2022 manual). Colors taken from NZTCS series 40. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the different versions it might not be appropriate to replace the old graphics with new if the assessments in the taxoboxes use the old system. I'll have a look at the usage and see if this is an issue before updating the images.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the icons and other information for status codes are set in Template:Taxobox/species. I think that just as there are versions of IUCN, e.g. IUCN3.1, there need to be versions of NZTCS, e.g. NZTCS2022. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, that might be hard to do retrospectively. There are around 1300 uses of |status_system(2)=NZTCS and most are unreferenced. Many already have assessments under the new version. However, the changes are mainly cosmetic, using a more varied colour range for the categories. One category (Recovering) has been replaced (with Nationally Increading). That can continue to use the graphic for the old version. Not ideal but if we use the new graphics the other categories will just be in a different colour, so there shouldn't be any confusion. The alternative requires all the existing uses to be reevaluated to check the version used.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know how I might be able to retrieve a list of all the articles which presently have 'R' as their status? I don't think I would have a problem going through and updating every instance of this while properly referencing it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this search there were only three articles on species with Recovering status. Two had been updated to NI and the third reclassified as Relict. I've edited the articles to the new statuses.
Unlike the IUCN, which makes new assessments piecemeal, the NZTCS publishes a report covering all species every four to five years, so I don't see a need for retaining the old systems. I've added the NI status to {{Taxobox/species}} to allow the changes above and propose that we change the images on the other categories.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One potential hiccup I'll point out: I think I've created the diagram "technically" incorrectly, because apparently, nobody actually sticks to the 2022 guidelines (and thus neither did I). For instance, if you take a report at report 43 (vascular plants 2023), they use the new system to include Nationally Increasing, but then they fall back to the Townsend 2008 system to include one species as 'Recovering'. Report 40 (indigeneous marine inverts 2021) doesn't have any which are Nationally Increasing, Relict or Recovering. Report 41 has Nationally Increasing but then uses Declining, Relict, and Naturally Uncommon. Report 42 (indigenous terrestrial gastropods 2022) acknowledges (but doesn't need to use) Nationally Increasing but then uses Declining, Relict, and Naturally Uncommon.
Meanwhile, though, if you take a look at the 2022 guidelines, Figure 2 on page 11 is extremely clear that the 'At Risk' section is composed of 'Declining, Uncommon, Recovering' in order of most concern to least. Something I'm also realizing is that I should've put 'Not Threatened' on the same diagram as the others, because they all fall under 'Assessed'. I didn't because I feared having to fit the word 'Threatened', but I see that the diagram for COSEWIC gets around this by abbreviating it to 'Threaten.' I'll at least do that before you add these new ones. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes. I've kept the categories as-is even though they contradict the 2022 manual, because otherwise, we'd end up with a case where we technically comply with the rules but none of the reports do, thus making our diagram functionally useless. However, I've added 'Not Threatened' to it, because it's clear that (unlike Data Deficient) it's on the same axis as the others. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating edit request as it appears to be done. If there's any specific change that needs an uninvolved template editor (as opposed to Jts1882 implementing themselves), then feel free to reactivate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back with Jts1882 to see if there's anything else I can do to help get this update implemented. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to remember what the issue is. I added the new graphic for NI, which I assume is a new status, but left the others for some reason, possibly evaluating effect on older assessments. Your request now is for the graphics to be updated for all the statuses. I don't see why not, but can't remember why I didn't do them all at once. I will try and get this done in the next couple of days.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Still not exactly sure what happened. Looks like I added the new NI category but didn't change the others. I think I've got them all. I left the old categories with the old image. After making the changes, I noticed that the updates could have been done by changing the redirects on Commons as images without the date in the name redirect to the 2008 images (e.g. File:Status NZTCS NV.svg --> File:Status 2008 NZTCS NV.svg).  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 25 May 2025

[edit]

Change "incertae sedis" to "Incertae sedis" in the color table. Jako96 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have already changed this in {{Taxobox colour scheme}}, then came back to mark it completed and ran into an edit conflict. So sorry, editor Jonesey95. All the other entries are uppercased; incertae sedis was the only entry that wasn't. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The others appear to be proper nouns, capitalized in all cases, while "incertae sedis" is always shown in lower case, AFAICT. That's why I marked the request as "please establish consensus". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider bacteria, fungi, nor viruses to be proper nouns, so for me it was consistency of first-letter-case that was most important. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin phrase "incertae sedis" means "of uncertain placement"; it's not a noun, proper or otherwise, unlike "bacteria" or "virus", so can legitimately be treated differently, and in my view should be. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't believe there was a proper discussion and consensus for the change to {{Taxobox colour scheme}}, I have reverted it for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the phrase is not itself a noun, it is being used in place of a noun, and so could be treated as a noun phrase. Even so, since it isn't being used in the place a title case would be mandated (such as the start of a sentence) I think the miniscule is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode issue

[edit]

Template:Taxobox/core/styles.css has different background colors for the image in night mode (transparent), compared to automatic night mode (white). Was this a conscious decision or an oversight? A report was made at mediawikiwiki:Reading/Web/Accessibility_for_reading/Reporting/en.wikipedia.org#Namacalathus_dark_mode_error that seems to be caused by this difference. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was deliberate as I added it with this edit. I think I must have added in response to an edit request as I don't usually touch the dark mode stuff. The edit message is "use transparent background for taxobox images now |class=skin-invert-image added to conservation statuses". I remember adding the class. I'll see if I can find the edit request.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The request is archived at Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_32#Protected_edit_request_on_5_August_2024. A solution might be to add a specific class for the conservation status image. jdlrobson made dark mode modifications, so possibly can advise here.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdlrobson: Can you advise?  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes should probably have an "image_class" parameter

[edit]

I'm saying this because Parakaryon has an SVG image, and it's invisible on the default dark mode (and probably also the gadget dark mode as well). {{Chembox}} has the |image_class= parameter for their images, that's useful. CheckNineEight (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the class to the taxobox with | image = Parakaryon myojinensis drawing.svg{{!}}class=skin-invert-image, as I did with this edit. A parameter might be better though.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!  Thanks CheckNineEight (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: Adding |image_class= to a Speciesbox at present puts the article in an error-tracking category. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. It was temporary why I looked at what would be necessary to add the class. Module:InfoboxImage takes a |class= parameter, so the {{taxobox/core}} could add the class to the call there, but all the other taxobox templates would need modifying to pass the parameter. I couldn't see how to test this in the sandboxes, so was trying to do something with the visual editor.
As darkmode is integrated into the newer skins, this is something that probably needs to be supported for taxobox images and possibly range maps. The conservation status images already have the class.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a mess with dark mode and svgs. In Clevosaurus the taxobox image is fine, but the legend and image headers are almost invisible as the text is dark. The svgs need to be rendered differently.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gadget version of Dark Mode almost does it correctly, except it turns any dark colors black for some reason (if I recall correctly), and it leaves the white background as is; though it does invert automatically when the SVG has transparent background to begin with. I'm not aware of the default Dark Mode's entire mechanic, but I'm assuming all it did was make the white background transparent without inverting dark colors. CheckNineEight (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to CC-BY images

[edit]

Images of statuses (like File:Status iucn2.3 EX.svg and File:Status EPBC DL.svg) in Template:Taxobox/species have their links suppressed since the first version of the template. All these images seem to be licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic", which requires attribution, which is achieved on Wikipedia by linking to the image page, i.e. not suppressing linking with |link=. This suggests that the link suppression is violating the licenses of the images.

However, it could be argued that these images are ineligible for copyright as per text in commons:Template:PD-text.

What do you think? —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly composed of "simple geometric shapes", and the ordering of the categories is basic information. Whether the combination is sufficiently complex to be copyrightable I'm not competent to say. No-one has ever complained, so I would leave well alone. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who created the images? These aren't the IUCN graphics, but graphical representation of the IUCN status categories. The uses in each taxobox are accompanied by a link to the IUCN_Red_List article and a link to the species assessment on the IUCN website. Surely this sufficient attribution for the concept.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this, and I was surprised to see a recently archived discussion about it. I agree that commons:Template:PD-text would probably apply to these images. I wonder if User:Pengo, who created these images, would be willing to update the licensing himself. If not, then we should either link the images to comply with the license, or get Commons to change the licenses, or have someone create new images that could be used without attribution.
Re some of the above comments: Ignoring it because no one else complained yet isn't a good solution; try taking that argument to WT:Copyright problems and see how far that gets you. Linking to IUCN Red List to attribute the concept doesn't attribute the author of the image or inform a reader that the image is licensed as CC BY, which is what the CC BY license requires. Anomie⚔ 20:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Taxobox&oldid=1318251327"