IUCN Redlist - now also Green Status

Pygmy hog
Critically Depleted (IUCN Green)[2]
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Suidae
Genus: Porcula
Hodgson, 1847
Species:
P. salvania[1]
Binomial name
Porcula salvania[1]
Hodgson, 1847

The IUCN now includes a Green Status on some of their listings. Maybe only the Endangered ones? I don't know. Anyway, I saw it at IUCN's pygmy hog listing. We may want to incorporate this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's new to me. As far as I can tell it's about conservation efforts, so presumably they only do it on endangered/threatened ones. It might be a while before they get a Fully Recovered status.
It's possible to include it using the existing system by adding |status2_system=IUCN Green and |status2=Critically Depleted (see taxobox to right). If someone created a set of graphics it could be handled as a recognised system. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grubb, P. (2005). "Species Porcula salvania". In Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 641. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
  2. ^ a b Meijaard, E.; Narayan, G. & Deka, P. (2019). "Porcula salvania". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019: e.T21172A44139115. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T21172A44139115.en. Retrieved 16 January 2022.

Rank of infrakingdom

Is there a way the rank "infraregnum" could be added? It is necessary to showcase some disputed taxa like the Apusozoa (infrakingdom Diacentrida, subkingdom Sarcomastigota, kingdom Protozoa). Thanks in advance. —Snoteleks 🦠 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Clade: Diaphoretickes
Subkingdom: SAR
Infrakingdom: Halvaria
@Snoteleks: It is already available in ((automatic taxobox)) (e.g. see Halvaria and right). For consistency, it probably should be added to ((taxobox)) as well, although we try and avoid making changes there unless absolutely necessary. Do you need it specifically with a manual taxobox? I think it preferable to make any new taxoboxes with ((automatic taxobox)) so let me know if there is something you need and don't know how to implement. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apusozoa uses ((paraphyletic group)), which is a variant of the manual taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882 Yes, like Uther said, I need it specifically with a manual taxobox for a taxon that is abandoned, and therefore I didn't want to implement the taxon into the automatic taxobox system. —Snoteleks 🦠 17:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((paraphyletic group)) uses the prototype taxobox module (see Module:Biota infobox), which can take manual taxonomy parameters or use the automated system (by setting |auto=). I'm surprised that auto wasn't the default as it probably should be. I've updated the module to allow infraregnum with the manual taxonomy parameters (although this won't work with the ((taxobox)) template). —  Jts1882 | talk  17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apusozoa
(obsolete paraphyletic group)
Apusomonas sp.
Apusomonas sp.
Scientific classificationEdit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Clade: Obazoa
Phylum: Apusozoa
Cavalier-Smith 1997 emend. 2013
Groups included
Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa
@Snoteleks and UtherSRG:It turns out that Apusozoa is the only example of ((paraphyletic group)) using the manual taxobox parameters. All the others have |auto=yes or |auto=virus. I think ((paraphyletic group)) should be changed to use |auto=yes by default and require |auto=no to use the manual taxon parameters if absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary and think it would be better to use an automated taxobox. This makes it easier to review the taxonomies used on Wikipedia.
I'd also question the use of infrakingdom Diacentrida and subkingdom Sarcomastigota for Apusozoa. Neither have articles and it's a different classification to that used in the phylogenetic tree in the article. It makes more sense to place Apusoozoa within Obazoa than in the two paraphyletic Cavalier-Smith taxa, although that could be mentioned as an alternative in the text. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't aware para could use auto. Cool beans. As for the classification, I have no skin in the game; I was only helping to explain the OP's request. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882 I understand that, but at the same time, Apusozoa is an abandoned taxon whose only usage is within Cavalier-Smith's hierarchical classification, not the current cladistic classification of eukaryotes. If we apply this rule that every abandoned taxon should be added into the automated taxobox system, we would end up with a lot of outdated para- or polyphyletic taxa whose only parent is Eukaryota or something nearly as big, because its parent taxa are also abandoned. Which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the disputed taxa should intermingle with the automated taxoboxes.
Would the creation of articles for Diacentrida and Sarcomastigota be a good solution of this? —Snoteleks 🦠 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snoteleks:, why not put it in Category:Obsolete eukaryote taxa, and remove the taxobox? This is what's done for some other Cavalier-Smith taxa, e.g. Archezoa and Cabozoa.Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is deserving of an article, then I think it should have a taxobox. The taxobox has more information than just the taxonomy and the taxonomy is still relevent if the taxon is no longer used. The question is which deserve articles. I've seen enough independent coverage of Apusozoa to warrant an article, but Diacentrida and Sarcomastigota are little used by others. That is why I think a taxobox reflecting the taxonomy shown in the phylogenetic tree would be better. Just adding |auto=yes to the existing taxobox gives a suitable taxobox. I've added it here (see right) with a few tweaks. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess that's the more useful outcome. I'll do that instead.—Snoteleks (Talk) 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed, what about Heliozoa? The (non-automatic) taxobox clearly shows Actinopoda and Sarcodina as parent taxa even though those are also obsolete. Where should we draw the line? I think maybe polyphyletic ones such as Heliozoa could retain a non-automatic taxobox, while paraphyletic ones that still "fit" in the Tree of Life (such as Apusozoa, Eolouka, crustaceans, etc.) can be transferred into the automatic system. Does that sound good? —Snoteleks (Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has expanded beyond the technical taxobox issue and would be better continued at the WP:PROTISTA project page. I've copied the last part of this discussion into a new topic on Obsolete and paraphyletic taxa and added a reply there. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connected taxoboxes

In the article stub about Cytherellidae the taxobox says it belongs to the order Platycopida, which is correct. And the taxobox in the article stub about Punciidae says that too belongs to the order Platycopida, which is wrong. It belongs to the order Palaeocopida. But when I change the info in the taxobox to correct it, the taxobox describing Cytherellidae changes too, from Platycopida to Palaeocopida. And vice versa. The two taxoboxes are connected, so when you edit it in one of the mentioned articles, the same thing happens in the other. Is there a way to separate them? Hipporoo (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipporoo: Fixed. I'm not sure what you tried to changed or where, but you needed to change the taxonomy template for Punciidae. I changed the parent taxon in Template:Taxonomy/Punciidae to Puncioidea, which was already set up correctly as part of Palaeocopida. For more on the use of the automated taxobox system see WP:Automated taxobox system. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated vs. discouraged, and should all empty discouraged parameters be removed?

There are many parameters listed as "deprecated" under Template:Taxobox#Template parameters, but they appear in the template code and in the documentation, albeit with heavily caveated use cases. They are:

plus their numerical counterparts, |image2_width=, etc.

It would be more accurate to change these to "discouraged", since the only parameter that's actually deprecated, from what I can tell, is |image_size=, since it has been removed from the immediate (i.e. non-nested) template code and from the documentation.

Related question: should all empty discouraged parameters be removed? I've been removing empty |image_width= (only) since at least 2020.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: "deprecated" is one of three qualifiers for parameters allowed by TemplateData. The others are "required" and "suggested". I've long thought there should be another qualifier for "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases" (I'm not sure how to name it in a concise way). |color_as= is an instance of "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases". I suppose |image_caption_align= may be as well, but I have never come across it being used in my time on Wikipedia.
Variety is correctly deprecated; |varietas= should be used instead of |variety= Most of the parameter names for ranks are Latin not English (regnum/classis/ordo/familia, not kingdom/class/order/family with phylum/genus/species being the same in Latin and English).
|alliance= is also English, but isn't used anywhere. I'm pretty sure I set it to "deprecated" as work-around when trying to find articles that used it and update them to recent classifications that didn't use that rank (the TemplateData Error Report will show articles using a particular parameter/value when a template has few transclusions. When a template has many transclusions (over 50k, I think) the option to see which articles use a particular parameter is disabled unless that parameter is marked as deprecated).
The "_width" parameters are correctly deprecated. "_upright" parameters should be used instead, although I would say the "_upright" parameters also fall into "should not normally be used, but necessary in exceptional cases" (the only reason to over-ride the default image display size is when an image has an extreme aspect ratio (tall/narrow or short/wide) that makes it display very large/small).
Any of the parameters you've listed should be removed when empty. Almost all the "_width" parameters should be removed even when non-empty (but the image should be checked to see if it does have an extreme aspect ratio that would merit using an "_upright" parameter instead). Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: I didn't realize that about TemplateData. Looking through the archives, I found a relevant discussion 5 years ago at #Add support for more sophisticated "required" options, which predicts the need for a "deprecated unless" parameter (oh, you're in that discussion too!), but to submit a bug request on Phabricator. I thought there'd be a much simpler solution to this, so if/when I get around to it, I'll look through phab tickets to see if something like this actually made it there, and go from there.
I think I'll stick with removing these empty parameters for now, and look for the special cases you mention after.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding:, |color= meets your stricter definition of deprecated; it's been removed from the template code, and I just removed it from the documentation. It should definitely be removed when empty. It could be removed when non-empty, as it does not do anything. I have been slowly working through the articles with "color = lightgrey" (the only value specified now) and converting them to automatic taxoboxes. I wouldn't mind at all if you got rid of all non-empty instance |color= now, but it is something I intend to eventually achieve myself if nobody else does it. "image_width=220px" is another bugbear of mine (220 is already the default), that I'm inclined to address with automatic taxoboxes, but wouldn't mind of you went ahead and got rid of it while leaving manual taxoboxes in place. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my long template-editor experience, it is best to remove from the documentation entirely any parameters that should no longer be used at all. The fact that they still might work, until all instances of the parameter in use have been removed/replaced, is immaterial. That they still function (at least for now) will be apparent in the source code, but if they are included in the documentation, then people will use them anew, no matter what the documentation says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about parameters that should not be used at all. However, the limited classification available in TemplateData does cause some problems. There are some parameters, like |color_as=, that are needed only in exceptional cases, so are "deprecated", but need to be supported indefinitely.
The image_width parameters are a different matter. I would like to remove them altogether. However, right now this tool reports 3,136 uses of |image_width= (plus some for other image width parameters), which ideally would be checked first. On the other hand, these parameters don't exist in the automated taxobox templates, like ((Speciesbox)) and ((Automatic taxobox)), so perhaps just removing them from the manual taxobox template would be ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I meant just for the ones that are "dead" parameters to remove them from the docs and replace or remove them, as needed, from "the wild". For stuff with occasional use, it would need to remain in the docs, just really clearly documented as to what unusual cases to use them for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with removing support for |image_width= from the code. None of the instances of 100px actually have an image. The remaining values range from 200px to 250px which isn't really a big enough difference from the default 220px to "fix" images with extreme aspect ratios. 234px/235px is used in fungus articles with ((Mycomorphbox)) to make the taxobox display at the same width as the mycomorphbox. If different widths in taxobox and mycomorphbox is even a problem in the first place, a better solution for that would be to make mycomorphboxes display at the same width as a taxobox with a 220px image. Plantdrew (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to have a bot remove all the instances of |image_width= first, to avoid all the pages showing up in the taxobox error-tracking categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories