نقاش القالب:Automatic taxobox

Please note: WikiProject Palaeontology is the only WikiProject to have approved the replacement of already-existing manual taxoboxes with automated ones, and has only provided explicit approval for short or rarely-edited pages. Elsewhere, until other WikiProjects have discussed migrating to the Automatic Taxobox, please only use automated taxoboxes where a taxobox does not already exist.

 Monotypic taxa

I keep running into this problem. Is there a way to bold and display the authors of higher taxa aside from the species? In a normal taxobox for example, I do the following, assuming that family and genus are both monotypic:

Family: †Jabberwockidae Son, 1860

Genus: †Bandersnatchus Banker, 1870

Species: †B. snarcus

Binomial: Bandersnatchus snarcus Baker, 1874

In autotaxobox, I'm forced to settle for the following (assuming the page was created at Bandersnatchus).

Family: †Jabberwockidae

Genus: †Bandersnatchus

Binomial: Bandersnatchus snarcus Baker, 1874

No authors, no bolding, and recursive links.

Perhaps a field like |monotypic=true or something (with added features for monotypy of more than just two levels) that automatically bolds the parents and shows authorities? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As shown in the documentation, you should be able to do this by using hte parameter "parent_authority ="--Kevmin § 13:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Only adds authors to one parent. No bolding either, just recursive links.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to use "grandparent_authority =", "greatgrandparent_authority =", etc. to get the authorities back up the tree. But I'm not sure why you want to do this; can you explain?

Bolding back up the tree isn't possible (at present), and I think wouldn't be desirable. Again, why would you want to do it? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Monotypy. Their articles would all be merged, so there would be no place to place the authorities but in the same articles. Bolding is AFAIK, standard for merged articles on monotypic taxa. It identifies that the article is about all of the bolded taxa. It's also preferable to recursive links. In a real article, Jabberwockidae would seem like a link to another article, but once I click it, it will redirect me to the same page (which is explicitly not okay per WP:OVERLINK).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see; my misunderstanding – it's not the bolding so much as the cyclic links which is the problem. I would suggest that you don't use the automatic taxobox system in such cases. (There's less advantage in automation in the case of monotypic taxa anyway, because no other article is going to share the lowest levels of the hierarchy.) It would, I'm sure, be possible to "fix" the templates to deal with this special case, but I'm not sure that it would be worthwhile – I think the system is already over-complex to maintain easily and monotypic taxa are a minority. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I've used a normal taxobox in such cases. As for the advantage thing. They're bottom rung mostly, yes, but they'd still be affected if ever their higher ranks get moved, which is the main utility of autotaxoboxes really (e.g. monotypic genera being automatically relinked to a different order if their family got moved, etc.) Given that WP:PALEO is the only wikiproject that recommends autotaxoboxes, this would be a good thing to accomodate, imo. A vast amount of fossil taxa are monotypic. :3 Anyway, thanks for the grandparent thing, didn't know about that. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Solved  Actually this is fixable, I've now realized. See Blandfordia and how "Blandfordiaceae" appears in the taxobox, now that I've edited it.

The solution for a family, say Xaceae, which has only one genus, X, is to ensure that at Template:Taxonomy/Xaceae the link is | link = X|Xaceae (given that the species article is under the genus name).

If the article is titled "X" then all the Template:Taxonomy/<taxon> pages above it that actually end up at X (as there is no article with the title "<taxon>" because of monotypy) should be changed to have | link = X|<taxon>. The Wikimedia software then automatically replaces self-links by bold.

So in the specific example, if the only article is at "Bandersnatchus snarcus":

• Template:Taxonomy/Jabberwockidae has | link = Bandersnatchus snarcus|Jabberwockidae
• Template:Taxonomy/Bandersnatchus has | link = Bandersnatchus snarcus|Bandersnatchus

Then the article "Bandersnatchus snarcus" can use {{Speciesbox}}, and all will work. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oooooh. It worked! Awesome, tyvm! :D -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that there's no documentation page (that I know of anyway) which tells you in some detail how to create the "Template:Taxonomy/<taxon>" pages which are what make {{Automatic taxobox}}, {{Speciesbox}}, etc. work. If there were, I could add the solution above to it... Peter coxhead (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the page for "I'd like to do something a little more complicated" listed in the template's documentation: {{Automatic_taxobox/doc/advanced}} Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, Bob? It doesn't look like it. I think there needs to be one documentation page on how to create "Template:Taxonomy/<taxon>" pages, clearly signposted from {{Automatic_taxobox/doc}}, covering both the simple cases (at the top of the page) and the more complex ones (at the bottom). The underlying problem is that since there are many "Template:Taxonomy/<taxon>" pages, there can't be a single "/doc" page for them. (I'd draft the documentation myself, but I want to finish what I'm trying to do at Cactus.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Redundancy

قالب:FYI The structure of this and related templates is the subject of discussion at Template talk:Taxobox#Redundancy. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)