User:Ucucha/Taxonavigation

I think the current method for making the taxonavigation is not very good, since one would have to put an extra ":" in all pages about subtaxa of the Craniata. That would be a horrible work, I think. This kind of making the taxonavigation avoids that problem. I've made quite a few proposals, which are different in their layout. Ucucha (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple table

Regnum:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Classis:	Mammalia
Ordo:	Soricomorphia
Familia:	Soricidae
Genus:	Sorex

Table based on Dutch taxobox

Thema:	Biota
Regnum:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
No rank:	Craniata
Subphylum:	Vertebrata
Classis:	Mammalia
Ordo:	Soricomorphia
Familia:	Soricidae
Genus:	Sorex
Species:	Sorex caecutiens

Simple list

• Thema: Biota
• Regnum: Animalia
• Phylum: Chordata
• No rank: Craniata
• Subphylum: Vertebrata
• Classis: Mammalia
• Ordo: Soricomorphia
• Familia: Soricidae
• Genus: Sorex
• Species: Sorex caecutiens

Other proposals

Feel free to add other proposals. Ucucha (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I am all in favor of making things neater. I would like it to be easy to update existing pages and templates.

How would we handle large number of items? For example, if a genus has 15 species. On Wikipedia, when people use the Taxoboxes they typically say something like, Many species, see Text. That fits in with an article but maybe not here. See Trochilinae for an example with lots of genera for a given family.

I think there should be a list of "lower taxa" in the text. Otherwise the "taxobox" would be too large. Ucucha (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I am in favour of a different system too. With a few caveats, however:

• The above mentioned problem of multiple taxa. What do we put in the box? two Genera, five, maximum ten? Or only when there is just a single one? Most 'higher' taxa will have several subtaxa.
  The current system solves this, is esay to navigate but is labourious to maintain.
• What about conversion. Do we talk bots or manual conversion here?
• Nobody mentioned images. A lot of species haven't—and likely won't have in the foreseeable future—a corresponding site on wikipedia. When a species is fully covered on the latter, this may well be the best place to showcase pictures. At the other hand, in the case of obscure species—who would write a full article about a tiny polychaete that only marine biologists encounter?—,would it not be appropriate to add a picture (one should suffice) on its Wikispecies page?

Lycaon 21:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The list of lower taxa may be placed in the text, I think. Otherwise this box should be too long.

Hopefully I'll be able to bot it. Maybe not.

I think images can be added for each article (do you have images of each tiny obscure polychaete?) if it's possible. However, it's best to use the Commons for them. They may be added just below this "taxobox", I think. Ucucha (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

While I'm a major proponent of the taxoboxes on en:, I'm not inclined to change the navigation we have here. Taxoboxes are intended to give a snapshot of relevant data. Taxonavigation is intended to give full and immediate access to all of the taxa higher than the existing article, and to all of the taxa one level immediately below. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I only call them taxoboxes because they look like English taxoboxes. The problem is that one has to change very many pages in order to add a new taxon higher than the article. Ucucha (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so let's look at what can be done to solve the problems (and some of the benefits) of the current system, instead of thinking too far out of the box (pun intended *grins*). The level of updating required is mostly due to the extra ":" needed on every line below where a new line is being added. Templates minimize this a little, but they do not minimize it significantly. I like the slope, though, because it visually fills up the space better; a straight list or taxobox would only take up room on one side or the other (or be obnoxiously in the middle). Optimally, if WikiData were up and running, I believe that would solve our problems, because the data and the formatting could be stored separately. Perhaps we can reorganize the data we have better so that we maintain the the benefits (full access, visually filling) and minimizes the negatives better or utilizes the existing minimizing strategy better.

What if we chunk the data at the major taxa?

Main Page

Regnum: Animalia

Subregnum: Metazoa

Superphylum: Bilateria: Deuterostomia

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Classis: Aves

Subclassis: Neognathae

Ordo: Columbiformes

Familia: Columbidae

Subfamilia: Columbinae

Genus: Streptopelia

Species: Streptopelia chinensis

With this system, the major rank taxa info (Animalia, Chordata, Aves, etc.) is more easily identified. The amount of work needed to add an additional line would significantly reduce the number of articles that would need to be updated, and with proper template usage would also detach changes made to higher taxa from effecting lower taxa articles. Major taxa here are always indented once, the 1st intermediary under a major is indented twice, etc. (Indent pattern: 1 2 3, 1 2, 1 2, 1, 1 2, 1, 1). An alternative would be to use a <br> instead of the major taxa's indent, then the 1st intermediary gets 1 indent, the 2nd gets 2, etc.

Main Page
Regnum: Animalia

Subregnum: Metazoa

Superphylum: Bilateria: Deuterostomia

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Classis: Aves

Subclassis: Neognathae

Ordo: Columbiformes

Familia: Columbidae

Subfamilia: Columbinae

Genus: Streptopelia

Species: Streptopelia chinensis

Again as above, but each major rank is indented more (starting with no indent), while the intermediary indenting is linked to the major taxa. (Indent pattern: 0 1 2, 1 2, 2 3, 3, 4 5, 5, 6).

-- UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I like your first proposal. It looks good. The second one looks a bit messy because the position of the Deuterostomia in the tree looks a bit weird. I think the first one is better.

Another possibility is to put the "taxobox" on the right, while the text is in the remainder of the page, just like a real taxobox. Ucucha (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I like your ideas too, UtherSRG. With that said, I feel that putting the "taxobox" on the right makes more sense. It is simpler and more streamlined. Totipotent 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)