Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 9

4064:, as I recall). The taxoboxes are standardised in that they are now the same as the vast majority of taxoboxes – manually-set, easily-updated straightforward taxoboxes. It is much easier for editors to deal with them, and it is the standard way to show an organism's taxonomic position in a Knowledge infobox. Even if I had acted against my avowed recommendations (which seems to be the issue that concerns you), it would not undermine my argument, and you have not addressed that. As I have stated before, it would need to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the community that replacing a well-known system with an unfamiliar one brings with it substantial benefits. That has not yet been done. A lot of people are already put off by the complexity of the manual taxoboxes; the potential benefits of the new system are real, but are massively outweighed by the overheads and the increased complexity. Do not assume that your proposed system will eventually be implemented across Knowledge; there may be good reasons why the old system is better. Thus, any edit which seeks solely to further the spread of automatic taxoboxes is to be discouraged. -- 1915:(After 2 editconflicts) As an aside to Bob, the edit link in the taxobox doesn't show up in Firefox in my computer (it lies almost imperceptibly upon "Scientific Classification" and it is as good as impossible to click upon). But it does show up clearly in Internet Explorer. This means that whenever I have to move an article with an automatic taxobox, I'll have to switch from Firefox to Internet Explorer. No big deal. And @ Steminitis : indeed, in articles with manual taxoboxes, there has never been a problem. The task we're facing in Wikiproject Gastropods is enormous. There are almost a 100,000 accepted gastropod names and 400,000 to 500,000 synonyms (some even say much more - no one really knows). Many of the accepted names then turn out to be actually synonyms of other accepted names. And then, a great many snails (some think another 100,000) aren't even discovered, as most snails live on the sea bottom and the sea bottom is still mostly "terra incognita". If our workload is increased by the automatic taxobox, then this automtic taxobox may turn out not to be an improvement. Everything should be done to avoid this. 4160:

functioned, how it differs from the existing system, and so on. So a failure to decry the system earlier cannot be taken as support for its current implementation. Having two systems in place – one off-puttingly complex, and the other several times more complex still – is too many; we should probably choose one and stick to it. My concern, and what starting this whole thread, was that it was being assumed by a fairly small group of editors that there was no reason not to implement the new system on any and all articles. This has not, to my knowledge, been asked. I didn't complain about the development of a possible alternative, and it would have been wrong to do so at that stage. We all needed to see how it would turn out before deciding whether it was beneficial or not. (If this is, as you say, the final form, then my mind is made up.) There are benefits to this new system, and there are benefits to the old one. It is not at all clear that the old one should be replaced by the new one. Thus, editors should not be replacing

1506:). If I'm going to have trouble fixing every taxobox, this will result in a serious headache for me. I'm not familiar with the fine intricacies of programming. And I have to manage more than 22,000 articles about gastropods where almost every day several changes in taxonomy occur. We have a bot tracing these changes and producing regularly a new list of "unaccepted" species. Up to now this was hard work managing these changes, but everything went smoothly. And suddenly I'm confronted with this problem with taxoboxes. Isn't there a way in the programming that when an article is moved to its accepted name, the taxobox just has to be changed with the right names without having to touch the template ? If not, can you explain exactly, in layman's terms, what I have to do ? And another question, If I delete an article with a taxobox (e.g. wrongly spelled species name), what happens to the template of the taxobox ? 4479:). An interested editor could then examine the list (it would probably have to be divided up by taxonomic group to be useful) and make any changes he/she felt appropriate to rectify the apparent discrepancy. I would envisage most of the fixes being made manually, except in instances where a large amount of repetitive work would be easily farmed out to a friendly bot. I think a system like this would be able to find most problems. I can't think of a taxobox consistency problem that could not be solved in this way, but as I say, it is just a vague idea at the moment, and there may well be things I've overlooked. -- 2426:(edit conflict) :::I believe the point of this template is the ease with which classifications can be changed on thousands of articles with just a few edits instead of the thousands of edits necessary. E.g., I'm running through all flowering plant articles with AWB and updating the old Cronquist system to the APG III system. This would have been so much easier if each taxon had been automated already. Hesperian and I have been working on this intermittently for about two years now and my current effort has been fairly strong for weeks with no other work. Future changes in classifications will be 4374:

best to switch to the automatic taxobox because it makes their lives of maintaining the phylogeny consistent in that clade, they by all means just should do so. We really do not need a many pages of discussion whether exception a, b and c that affect 5, 100 and 4 pages respectively should hold up a system that is already used widely and is beneficial in many places. The last thing we want is a months long community debate that results in a somewhat consensus to let people go forward where it works. because that is generally were these discussions end up at anyway. --

3840:"Sneaking" only in the sense that there was once a proposal to do a bot automation and a grand switchover. That didn't happen, and the subsequent edits have been small and unannounced. A big bot request would have opened up a full debate about whether we wanted to switch all taxoboxes to automatic or not. The current method just kind of assumes that there would have been consensus for it, and acts on that basis. Finished or not (I don't recall any announcement of completion), consensus is lacking. The appropriate place for that discussion to occur is, I think, 3851:; the idea is that a simple algorithm could find inconsistencies in taxoboxes on different articles (which is, after all, the problem that this template was supposed to solve) and report them somewhere, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Editors could then manually resolve the problems or, if there were too many to do manually, file a bot request to do a large number at once. I asked if there were any reason why such a system should not work and would not achieve everything that this template set out to achieve, and received no reply. You did read it, Bob, because 1210: 31: 2469:

leaves us weighing up the intended increase in consistency against the increased template complexity, particularly for newer editors, and that was what I was trying to ascertain. But I fear this thread is veering off-topic. I think the time will come quite soon when the community needs to decide which way to go with this. While keeping two systems would be feasible, it would seem foolish to maintain both if there is a significant advantage to one over the other. --

4437:

AT. What happens when I create a new taxobox that contains a phylogeny different from the blessed one? Does the bot "fix" it? How do I figure out where to change the "blessed" phylogeny? What if I go to a taxobox that I think is wrong, fix it, see that the saved page is like I think it should be, then go away? Will a bot come and revert my change? If so, how is this any less surprising or unclear than AT? If not, how will this solve anything? Thanks,

3156:

original papers, which is a slow business as I'm sure you know. It would be nice if there were more people working on paleobotany, not just to share the work but also to exchange ideas with. I'm aware that I tend to write very 'academically' and find it hard to pitch articles at the right level for a Knowledge reader. I should also say that this is a winter activity; as it warms up and my garden beckons, there'll be less Knowledge work.

489:

protection of all frequently-transcluded taxa is hardly viable, and also flies in the face of Knowledge policy of being the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. An IP editor may well have constructive changes to make to the taxonomic hierarchy, and we shouldn't be holding them back. What we need is a better system for finding vandalised pages and reverting them, or making the system more robust to vandalism. Or both. --

2151: 3884:, the latter where all the ambiguity that really should have been there has been removed by using an automated taxobox. While I strongly comment the use of automated taxoboxes to streamline taxonomy on Knowledge, I believe the option to have manual taxoboxes should exist for just such cases. Perhaps they should be labelled differently, "taxoboxes for uncertain phylogeny" or something in that vein. 3774:

than a number of editors seem to realise. The automatic taxobox is not a perfect system, and is supposed to be still in its pilot phase. It is also supposed to reproduce faithfully the effects of the old taxoboxes, so any edit which only replaces one with the other is discouraged by existing guidelines, and by common sense. I don't want to see automatic taxoboxes forced upon the community as a

4627: 3640: 3467: 675:, sometimes creating over 10 articles in a minute. Again, these editing faster than you can look at the articles and not previewing leads to the same results: filling wikipedia with articles with screaming red error message outweighing the text. 100+ taxa articles that are entirely overwhelmed by their error messages are not a welcome addition. 4502:

problem if they prefer the manual taxobox, I do feel responsible to at least update the database to reflect their wishes so it is in line with whatever taxonomy they prefer. Automation's not just about standardization, it's also about compromises and keeping them as seamless as possible in order to appeal to those working with the said group.

679:

see any way around blocking IP editors from the taxonomy templates. I don't like full edit protection because that leads to administrators only editing, which I strongly disagree with. Can we semi-protect class and above? Is there a better way to signal IP edits to the templates, especially higher order ones impacting a lot of articles? --

3078:. It has been classified in the zosterophylls, but doubtfully, so the "?" after Zosterophyllopsida is correct. I managed to do this bit myself! But if it's not a zosterophyll then it's probably not a lycophyte either, so I want a "?" against Lycopodiophyta too. I can't work out how to do this. The "?" mechanism is very useful, but 3220:"Template:Taxonomy/X/Var1" might have it as "Y/Var1", "Template:Taxonomy/X/Var1" as "Z". Is that right? If so, it's in principle nice that you can be as flexible as this, but in practice a bit worrying, since if these 'chains' aren't set up carefully, surely they can intersect, producing unwanted (and unexpected) consequences? 3074:, there are "?"s against both Horneophytopsida and Polysporangiophyta. This is correct; there is uncertainty as to how it should be classified because it's only a fragmentary fossil. It has been thought to be a moss, in which case it would be a member of neither Horneophytopsida nor Polysporangiophyta. Now I want the same for 1864:

to thousands of articles that would need to be changed manually. While with auto taxoboxes, you would just need to relink the immediate children of the order, (the families involved, or even better, superfamilies or suborders if they exist), and every other article below that using the autotaxobox would update automatically.

4653:, because there are some very serious problems in the way we are presently handling higher level taxa, but the number of editors currently active seems to be very small indeed, and I feel I've either been talking to myself or at most with 2-3 others. It's interesting that the main use of automatic taxoboxes is at 2415:. In the cases of several of them, including Sauropsida and the Latin versions of the upper plant taxa, RfCs were held and the appropriate WikiProjects were notified of the RfC before the taxonomies were merged. Others were determined based upon WikiProject guidelines or the articles about the taxa themselves. 1070:

useful by themselves) then maybe the proposal to hide them from indexing would be absurd, but there aren't. As it is, they are quite obviously only for those who knows what they're doing. The template pages themselves have the header "Not sure why you're here?" and then provide links to instructions on how to

1854:, and I opted for the second option (convert so they are removed from the list, rather than just change the naming). I do feel however that automated taxoboxes, while daunting at first with all the gobbledegook, will make future moves involving higher taxa a lot easier in the long run and more consistent. 4679:

Ach, Bob, you're once again assuming that it will eventually be adopted, and that that's a good thing. That talk page link you provided is very instructive. Editors are being made to feel that they "have to" use the automatic taxoboxes; they must not be made to feel that way. It's that mindset that I

3733:

There is no consensus yet to switch to the automated taxoboxes. I would therefore request that no further edits be made with the sole intention of changing from manual taxoboxes to automatic ones. The manual system has several real and important advantages over the automated ones (all the information

3169:

is edited as you suggest. The problem then would be that if there's a plant which is doubtfully a zosterophyll but definitely a lycophyte the display won't be correct. (The real difficulty is that the classification of early land plants is a mess, and my reading of the original literature is that the

1873:

The problems I see currently seem to involve genera/species which are still linked in the templates. Higher taxa using automated taxoboxes would have no such problems as then you'd only have to change the taxon in question and its accompanying template. No need to change every taxobox of the affected

1813:

is moved to a new name, then its taxonomy template will also need to be moved, just as was the case for a species article with an automatic taxobox (the implication being that the problem cannot entirely be solved by a new template specific to the rank of species). For articles with manual taxoboxes,

4694:

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I'd like to remove the cloud of controversy surrounding automation (and yes, I do feel it's a major, long-awaited step forward, even if it has costs). How would you propose going about it? I mean, imagine you have this great invention that can help everyone; you want

4517:

It would seem no taxoboxes have been swapped out recently per your request. Hopefully it will stay that way unless some consensus is established somewhere in favor of swapping the taxoboxes in either direction. At this time, I don't see any reason not to introduce automated taxoboxes to taxobox-less

4436:

I would like some clarification about your proposal, Stemontis. You appear to be suggesting that a bot would go around and maintain taxoboxes according to some representation stored somewhere of the desired phylogeny. Other than being more confusing, I can't see how this is any different really from

4412:

Well, we obviously disagree on whether this is controversial, because I do not see it controversial at all. But that misses the point. My pointy is that we do not need community wide consensus to implement this in clades/groups where the editors agree it is fine. But we seem to agree, and I for that

4159:

to implement them on a wider scale. I expected, and I imagine others did too, that once it was implemented, the community would be given a chance to approve or deprecate the system. I would not make sense to have such a discussion until there was practical knowledge of how it functioned, how well it

4133:

I should add that my automations of taxoboxes are not being done "solely to further the spread of automatic taxoboxes"-- rather, they are being done for multiple reasons: to reduce future taxonomy maintenance; eliminate dated, invalid taxa; and to correct flaws in taxoboxes such as inconsistent rank

3696:

The more reading that editors have to do before they are comfortable with the template, the less willing they are likely to be to adopt it. So I'm currently putting an emphasis on walking the user through common tasks via active prompts such as editintros and clear error messages. You might notice

3363:

Let's start by rounding up all the pages we can find which have documentation on the automatic taxobox. Once we've located all of them, we can probably even get rid of some redundant stuff, or perhaps split them into transcludible sections. Post them inside the box below as you round them up. Have I

3044:

Thanks for digging that up, Kevmin. Interestingly, authorities were mentioned in that discussion with the perspective of displaying the authorities of children, not parents. Now that I'm seeing it in a different light, it's somewhat tempting, provided we could get any reference-type bugs worked out.

3009:

We held a rather lengthy discussion awhile back on potentially automating the authorities. The result of that discussion was not to do so, though I don't remember why we decided not to. Off the top of my head, however, an automated authority would definitely create problems if someone wanted to cite

1863:

For example, in manual taxoboxes, if an order has been reclassified, you would have to change each of the manual taxoboxes of the order, families, genera, and species articles (in addition to suborders, infraorders, superfamilies, etc. etc.) affected to reflect the change, and that can mean hundreds

694:

The vandalism I've seen thus far has all involved the addition of text that changes the syntax of the template, stopping it from working. This would be easy to detect via an algorithm, so watching for this sort of vandalism seems the ideal task for a bot. It won't catch more intelligent vandalism,

678:

Yes, how can the templates be monitored in a way that allows for a when something like this happens. I've edited taxonomies for years as an IP, correcting many egregious errors in taxoboxes. This is one area where wikipedia has a lot of IP editors working well to keep articles accurate. Yes, I don't

488:

upwards as a temporary measure, but I'm not entirely happy with it. If this system of automatic taxoboxes were ever to be rolled out across all the ToL articles, then even taxa relatively low in the hierarchy could be called thousands of times (think of some insect families, for instance). Permanent

116:

with one of these new ones. Of course since the taxobox used to be about the genus and the family it used to display the genus and family authors. It no longer does, although taxobot helpfully left a note about this and asked for someone to chose the correct one. In English, how does this get fixed?

4712:

You can't just "remove the cloud of controversy" without addressing the controversy itself. The system is not a "great invention that can help everyone"; it is seriously flawed. It has some advantages but not (at least in my opinion) enough to outweigh the very real problems that it begets. You ask

4393:

is certainly controversial) be performed with the backing of the community, or at least no explicit disapproval from the community. It may well be beneficial in some cases, but it is not the only way to achieve the desired result. If a group has determined that it would help their particular field,

4373:

I find this demand for a community wide consensus before starting to use this really unnecessary. We are talking about thousands and thousands of pages and the reasons to hold this up amount to we have some unclarity here and there. So, if a few editors working ion a specific group think that it is

3773:

I am saying that anyone who sets out to do that alone should make sure there is support for it (as for any such edit – this is not a new policy). Anyone writing a new article, for instance, can do as they like, but there has been a trend towards assuming consent for edits which are more contentious

2060:

I've begun working on structuring the virus database and just now learned that all virus taxa are italicized (except the group). Before I take a stab at this, any suggestions on what might be effective and efficient for identifying virus taxa? Or, perhaps, should we diverge virus support into a new

1961:

I think Obsidian's right, though...the average amount of reworking per taxonomic revision (including pagemoves) is significantly reduced in at least supergeneric cases. Perhaps streamlining the page-movability will be a good summer project in the event anyone comes up with a solid idea. I'm open to

1792:

Thanks Bob, I'll try this out as soon I encounter another gastropod article with an automatic taxobox to be moved (luckily most gastropod articles still have traditional taxoboxes). As to the objection of Stemonitis about genera, when a genus A becomes a synonym of genus B (with an already existing

1684:

That may be a step in the right direction, but I suspect it's solving a slightly different problem. The issues of synonymy and page moves could equally apply at any rank, although such changes are naturally rarer in higher taxa. Adding a species template does not help the taxonomy template follow a

1019:

Problem is, the template pages have rows upon rows of deliciously inviting 'edit' links for vandals. And vandalizing one of those at even family level can lead to hundreds of articles getting broken. I must admit though, they are actually very helpful, though obviously not intended for regular user

583:

The category is almost back to normal now. The process seems to take about two hours at the moment. In this particular case, perhaps there's no real harm done, but it would have been a lot worse if a vandal had added something defamatory. Displaying a libellous claim on thousands of pages for hours

4553:

I'm not entirely happy with the wording in the box Bob has put at the top of this page. I agree that where a whole set of articles has been worked on in the past and is provided with agreed and consistent manual taxoboxes, they should not (yet) be replaced wholesale by automatic ones. On the other

4081:

is already being updated automatically per several different algorithms. It's falsely reporting all new templates until we clear them manually, but it's been very beneficial so far in pointing to problems. I've been cleaning it out nearly daily and passing errors I'm not sure how to solve along to

2675:

Ever since Kleopatra mentioned this about a month ago, I've been filling in the reference parameter on taxonomy templates with whatever my resource was for naming the parent taxon, even if the best I can do is a link to a Knowledge article that (at that time) showed that parent taxon. My apologies

425:

to a taxonomy template high in the hierarchy, which broke every child taxobox (all animals). So, while it wasn't a fault of anyone developing the template system, it does expose a weakness in the system. Not only is it now easy to destroy very large numbers of articles very quickly, it can be very

4588:, which it is not (necessarily), and as if it were of direct benefit to the article, which it is not (necessarily). I don't want editors to think they are actively encouraged to use the automated system, but likewise, I don't want to discourage editors from making real improvements to articles. -- 4458:

No, you misunderstand. As I conceive it, bots would only be involved when an editor found some large task that he/she didn't fancy performing manually (just as bot requests function now). The system would not require any automated edits outside the project namespace; it might only be one edit per

4262:

I completely agree that the template has a steep learning curve at the moment: this is something that we are currently addressing, as we're revisiting the documentation (see above). Having waited this long to create the documentation means that we now have experience in the best way to deal with

4137:

Petter-- it's not a full-bot switchover. The bot performs only the edits a human editor requests it make. Its purpose is to enable streamlined edits and maintain templates that are critical for certain functions of the taxobox, not to automate things by itself. Think of it as a tool, not a bot. I

3738:

has been demonstrated for the switchover. I disapprove very strongly of this apparent attempt to sneakingly switch over to the new system through manual editing. Any edit which replaces an existing manual taxobox with an automatic taxobox needs to have gained the consensus of the community before

3602:

I've got a certificate saying that I'm a "Chartered Information Technology Professional" and the idea of editing the taxonomy still scares me at present! One problem seems to be that you can't create edits in user space to test them (or if you can, I can't see how). Compare this to creating a new

3219:

Let me see if I've got this right. Given a taxon X, I can set up multiple alternative taxonomic hierarchies by having "Template:Taxonomy/X", "Template:Taxonomy/X/Var1", "Template:Taxonomy/X/Var2", etc. which have different parent links? So "Template:Taxonomy/X" might have the parent taxon as "Y",

2687:

Bob and/or Martin: can you explain exactly what the present position is? When Martin wrote that references didn't show up "ecause they're not meant to", this was obviously not quite right because (a) he fixed the article in question so the reference did show up (b) I read up about the "authority"

2579:

The only case which does seem clear is when the reference is to the publication in which the taxon name itself was established. This is only needed at the lowest level, and should be reasonably easy to work into the article, if it's agreed not to put such references in the taxobox. Looking around

4183:

And all this still ignores an important point. What could not be achieved by an inconsistencies report and routine bot requests? I have asked several times, and I have heard exaclty nothing in reply. The cleanup category is not at all what I meant; that chiefly reports a failure to implement the

3155:

textbook to hand, I thought I'd fill in some gaps, starting with species articles, and ideally moving upwards to some of the higher level articles, such as Paleontology. Unfortunately, I discovered that the textbook was just too sketchy (and sometimes not quite accurate) so I've had to work from

2430:

easier to edit; for this reason, the automatic taxobox has advantages over every other taxa database out there, which have become stale with old classification systems and would take so much effort to update. But to answer your question, yes, automating flowering plant taxoboxes will immediately

1069:

They won't actually be hidden as they can still be accessed inside wikipedia and searched for. Point is, they weren't meant to be read as is, they are templates after all. If there were provisions for them to become different resources in their own right (which I support, as they really are very

717:

Aside from the introduction of syntactical errors, I seem to recall a second type of vandalism-- one template's display text (Eukaryota?) was changed to "this animal has a big penis". Thankfully, display text vandalism is far easier to track down. I'm all for Cluebot or some other bot monitoring

247:

I'm seeing situations where editors have altered the taxonomy for the worse as part of implementation. This happens when (1) the editor installing the automatic taxobox is unfamiliar with the edited group, and (2) not all taxoboxes for organisms related to the group are in agreement. There are

4501:

proved to be controversial, as they altered the ancestral taxa which had been preferred by the contributors to those pages. When this does happen (and it does, trust me), a discussion follows with the goal of modifying the database to appeal to the contributors to that article. While it's not a

2517:

I'd suggest that it is more useful to the reader if the references are situated in the article text, where it is clear to what they refer. If they were positioned in the taxobox (besides technical limitations), it wouldn't be clear whether the reference referred to the person that placed (say)

2468:

I don't see that an inconsistencies report and taxon-specific bot tasks could not achieve the same results, and that was the yardstick I suggested. The ability to change large numbers of articles in few edits is equally a strength and a weakness, as the recent vandalism proved. To my mind, that

4717:

going about it. That is the point that I have been trying to make for some time, and is how this discussion began. You feel that it is a "major, long-awaited step forward", but others (myself included) disagree, often quite strongly. That is the controversy, and it is not something that can be

4505:

Stem, as for your proposal, that's an intricate one that would definitely require a lot of programming, and it's one I hadn't even thought of (I like it, too!). Due to its intricacy and my current state of business, I'm unable to pursue that at the moment, however; though if someone does begin

4204:

listed an outmoded higher classification, then the editor could file a bot request to change all those articles to the same new format. It seems to me (I may be wrong) that this approach could find all the problems that the automatic taxobox set out to solve. It would have some advantages over

3873:

I don't think a full bot-switchover would be a good idea. There are critters, particularly somewhat fragmentary fossil ones, where the uncertain phylogenetic position require the taxobox to be jury rigged so to speak, to illustrate that an animal can fall in either of two classes, or where the

2177:

recommends italics for all clade names. So this may become the standard. It notes that the ICZN does not recommend italics for ranks above genus, but given that only animal family-group names are covered there, it seems like a minor nitpick to argue that ALL taxon names shouldn't start getting

1883:

Manual taxoboxes may not need their accompanying templates moved, but then you also need to change every species article's taxobox under them anyway, which is more work. Anyway just my two cents. And yeah I agree, separating the species from the genus (so you wouldn't need to retype the genus

2124:

Thanks. As we're not really dealing with taxonomy per se, and because virus classification has its little quirks, I'd argue that a separate template is the way to go (although still using taxobox/core, of course!). This will improve performance and make upkeep of the automatic taxobox more

4558:

and I appear to be the only people who have recently created new articles on early polysporangiophytes. He used automatic taxoboxes (no surprise!); I initially did not, but now that I think I've mastered the template, I've changed all the articles I created to automatic taxoboxes. I have

2798:, etc. In many cases, the resource indicated here will simply be a link to a Knowledge article, usually indicating the person who set up that template didn't want to alter the currently accepted classification scheme at Knowledge and used whatever was listed on that article at the time. 1793:

article; if not, create one first), a redirect is made. And redirects don't have taxoboxes. So, the objection is actually a non-problem. All the species in genus A are then moved to genus B (or to several genera). The problem only arises in moving an article with an automatic taxobox.

814:

The clade Rhabditophora isn't currently used in WP articles, but it had been incorporated into a taxobox. When I moved its child out of Rhabditophora and into Platyhelminthes, I left Rhabditophora but didn't want it displaying in the child list of Rhabditophora. Hence, "/inactive".

2565:

There is the interesting issue of whether editors should, in general, put references in taxoboxes. This is something I'm not sure about – maybe it needs discussing more widely. On the one hand, if I present a taxonomy in the body of an article without a reference then this violates

2387:, although I'm not sure how that excuses the unexpected behaviour. How many further layers of complication are there likely to be before this system can be considered complete? This setup is already so uncommonly complex that it is likely to collapse under its own weight. Are there 1953:

move the templates; however, I'm fairly certain a tracking category could be developed to detect such modifications and add them to the cleanup category. Please keep in mind, however, that all subgeneric and higher-level taxa should have their templates moved and their daughters'

1607:

is useful for monotypic taxa and the like, where the title of the article needn't be the same as the core taxon in the taxobox (although they cover the same set of organisms), but not in the case of synonymy. The only good solution I can see in that case is to move the template.

515:

Personally, I would set all highly used taxonomy templates to full indefinite protection. This is what full protection is for, even though we want the encyclopedia to be edited by all. We can add a noinclude note at the top of each one directing editors here if they want to use

4470:

would visit pages (read-only) and note any discrepancies between taxonomies on different pages, with discrepancies recognised according to criteria which I haven't really thought about. It would then report these, either at some project page erected for that purpose (such as

4518:

articles, so I'll continue doing that as I see fit. And in the meantime, it can't hurt to continue building the taxonomy database. Also per this discussion, I've added a warning to the top of this page requesting folks do not "swap out" taxoboxes without further consensus.

4319:

I was trying to respond to your question "What could not be achieved by an inconsistencies report and routine bot requests?". Did I misunderstand what you were asking? Perhaps we should continue this discussion in the new section started below, to keep it in one place.

3793:

Um...there's no sneaking around being done here. I've been leaving edit summaries stating "automated taxonomy" so that anyone reviewing the edit history can tell when it was automated. Also-- you say you've proposed an alternative...mind linking to it? This is news to me.

2612:, with a single species in its own class, there will be a single page for all the ranks of class to species and thus references for publication of all levels. If the automatic taxobox can't handle this efficiently, then we need to postpone (further) its implementation. -- 4188:). My suggestion (I will repeat it again) was that a fairly simple algorithm could look through existing (presumably manual) taxoboxes and report at some other location what discrepancies there were between articles. It could report, for instance, that although the genus 3505:

I was thinking about this last night and wondered whether /doc should be no more than a "why are you here" page, with links to a dedicated doc page for each target audience. First-time users don't need technical information, and template maintainers don't need in-depth

4657:, since I think their big advantage is in handling extinct organisms for which the literature uses cladistic rather than Linnean approaches. Sadly there is no "WikiProject Paleobotany"; I'm only aware of one other editor currently doing anything in this area (Martin 4026:

I'm confused by your comment above, Stemonitis, that anyone starting a new article can do as they like. This doesn't seem to tally with your recent editing behaviour, where you replaced the automatic taxoboxes added by the article's creator with manual taxoboxes:

1532:

Yes, there is a way: return to the old, manual taxobox. Any method implementing the automatic taxobox will require an additional page move. On your second point, if you delete an article, the taxon template remains untouched, which probably isn't a huge problem.

4638:). I think that at this point, a proposal at that WikiProject for declaring automation of an uncontroversial taxonomy as an uncontroversial edit might go over well. Let the dinosaurs lead the way, and other WikiProjects may become inspired to adopt it as well. 3330:

Perhaps Bob and I need to sit down and think about this – I know that he made a start of making some guides. It's actually really useful to have all your feedback: after spending too long coding the template it's often easy to lose sight of what is and is not

4285:

Martin, I have constantly acknowledged that the automatic taxobox has advantages. That really is not the issue here. I do not wish to discuss the ins and outs of the atuomated system here. My point is that (in addition to its advantages) this system has some

3935:

Substantive: inconsistencies between taxonomies are not simply errors to be fixed. There are deep issues around whether classifications which include extinct species can be made consistent with those for extant species only and whether they can be relatively

3975:

Problem is I need a taxobox saying "Amphibia or Reptilia" or "Amphibia/Reptilia" for class. Those situations are bound to be very rare. Perhaps we can have a separate type of taxobox (similar to the present non-automatic one) for anomalous cases like this?

4608:

you, Peter (and anyone else interested in cleaning up the controversy around migration), to discuss this issue in full with your respective WikiProject prior to engaging in any migrations. We don't need to stir up as much commotion as there was with the

1843: 3359:

be nice...you're in Europe, right? And I'm in America...hmmmmm. And don't forget, Erik's helped write a lot of the documentation as well! (Where is he lately, anyway?) Well, anyway, I've broken this off (as I often like to do) into its own topic...

2309:

Yes, but that wasn't the problem. I haven't seen it repeated in other, to my eye similar, templates, but at least those few were apparently being manually over-ridden to always_display, rather than simply displaying as major ranks. If you look at

3573:

Lol, I like the "I'd like to know the gory technical details". Don't forget one of our most popluar questions-- "how do I edit the taxonomy?" And then there's "I don't like the taxonomy offered"-- which ought to advise the client set up an RfC.

802:

I guess a more descriptive question is in order here. Martin, I see you created this page, and I'm wondering what it is. It's appearing in the cleanup category, which indicates to me that it's either unfinished or test or something different.

746:

I have a script that helps in finding template vandalism, it adjusts the list of "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" on the bottom of the edit screen to include information on the most recent edit to each template. See

3739:

doing so. I think the disadvantages of the new system outweigh their advantages (and have proposed a simpler alternative that would solve all the same problems without introducing new ones); you can therefore assume that the consensus is

2836:

By "reference" I've always meant "something in ref tags which should appear in the References section of the article". It seems a bit odd to me to be putting so-called 'references' in the taxonomic hierarchy which the reader doesn't see.

3945:

above), it's possible to create alternative classifications for the same taxon, so it's not the case that automatic taxoboxes will remove all inconsistencies (which is good for editor freedom, but perhaps not quite what was originally

3902:

for a bot to replace manual taxoboxes with automatic taxoboxes. Of course, only straightforward cases (i.e. where the "automatic" taxonomy is the same as what is already displayed in the taxobox) are suitable for upgrade using a bot.

2932:

Ok, thanks for the answer. You could usefully add to your doubtless long "to do" list the task of automating the storage and display of taxon authorities, so we don't need to add them manually to each automatic taxobox. Yours in hope,

952:", which is updated at least daily if not multiple times per day. I've had success before several times in notifying Google of various things and seeing action taken; I'll see if I can't contact them and let them know about this. 4577:

I think the spirit of the notice is clear. In your case, where you are actively working on a group of articles, no-one should complain. The only problem is with rolling it out as if it were the natural successor to the familiar

2155:. I just signed up at the virus WikiProject to get them rolling with automatic taxoboxes; I'm actually somewhat surprised that this didn't pop up sooner, but the virus WikiProject has been dormant for a good several years now. 4695:

the world to try it out and see how they like it; but you're not allowed to let them try it, because, let's say, it's illegal in all countries due to laws that didn't forsee the invention coming? (Actually, I just heard about

2773:

in the taxonomy template associated with a particular taxon. This reference should indicate the source of information used in linking the taxon to its parent. This information is not shown in taxoboxes and should also not use

971:, it has a noindex option which causes it not to show up in external searches. Something like this could help taxobox templates remain invisible and only accessible through the small 'e' edit button or internal searches. This 3174: 1625:

I've been frustrated with adding auto-taxoboxes for species in the past... creating the taxonomy templates feels redundant, given that the genus name is part of the binomen. Perhaps the solution to both of these issues is

2266:

flag.) This is clearly the wrong way; the default value when the parameter is omitted should be the same as when the parameter is named, but no value is given, and in this instance, both should very much be defaulting to

450:, that text got added to the end of the passed parameter "Opisthokonta". Perhaps some fix can be found to prevent this happening in future, but, like Kleopatra says, please test it somewhere other than the live pages. -- 4118:

As for notifying folks of the new template, bots, and several RfC's requesting input on classification strategies, that's been done countless times ever since October of last year-- I'm not sure how anyone checking the

3223:

If I have understood correctly, one use may be to have different but consistent hierarchies for extinct & extant plants, given the discussion earlier about the lack of a consistent Linnean system which covers both.

2958:

I'd like to repeat that I think that all the work being done on automating taxoboxes is great. The problem seems to be that, as with most software (I used to teach this stuff), the documentation lags behind the code!!

1048:

If you want to remove it from google searches, add __NOINDEX__ to the doc page. I agree that there seems to be no major harm in having it indexed. Semi-protection can be added if it starts becoming a vandalism target.

4738:

Then let's attempt to address issues. I'm starting a new topic below shortly where everyone can throw out all the issues they have about it, and we'll do our best to address any that can be addressed within reason.

1003:

Why not just leave the templates accessible to Google? They are probably becoming a taxonomically useful resource themselves. Let's allow people who want to find information about a taxon to find that information.

328:

thought it should be not because there is something wrong with automatic taxoboxes. And, the extra authority param was a taxobot problem, not one with automatic taxoboxes. But yeah, some things are pretty tricky.

2657:

We're in agreement about the desirability of referencing the authority for a taxon. Surely these authorities and references should be stored in the taxonomic hierarchy so that you don't have to enter them in the

4342:

N.B. I just thought I ought to reassure you that you have been the first person to object to the Automatic Taxobox template, and that I will not convert any further taxoboxes until this discussion is resolved.

3603:

template, for example, which is also quite scary, but can be done in user space sandboxes. As people learn best by doing, it would be nice if it were possible to create and test taxonomic hierarchies 'offline'.

1450:

Ok, you just moved it. Anyway yeah. Moving a page with an autotaxobox and renaming its contents requires moving and updating its template as well (or the deletion of the old template and the creation of a new

2580:

though, it seems to me that almost always the only place the botanical authority appears is in the taxobox, so this is the obvious place to put a reference to the publication which established that authority.

2561:

for features essential to the automation of the taxonomic hierarchy? I see that you've restored the reference by changing the place in which it appears; it would be good if the need for such 'tricks' can be

2574:. So why should presenting a taxonomy in a taxobox be different? On the other hand, as you say, it's difficult to see exactly how to make it clear which bit of a hierarchy is being sourced to the reference. 2410:

The migration is very slow, but many, many taxonomies have undoubtedly been modified to reflect consistency. In fact, several deprecated taxa that have been replaced in automated taxonomies can be found at

1987:) for species-level articles. It uses the automatic system to generate the higher taxonomy, but the genus and species name are manually specified - making it easier and more intuitive to rename a taxon. 1478:

parameter in the article, it will always link to the template, but the template will still need its link updated since redirects don't work well in the taxonomy template. More on that topic can be found at

2633:

article which is at the genus level, the taxobox shows lower levels (species) as subdivisions, so that references are attached to the genus name and the species subdivisions. However, it turns out that it

2587:

of automating taxoboxes. But we've seen from recent discussions that if switching from a manual to an automatic taxobox changes what is presented too much, editors won't be happy and hence won't use them.

2626:

Ah, I was thinking that when a taxon is the only member of the next higher rank, the article is usually named as the higher rank. It was this that I meant when I wrote "at the lowest level". Thus for the

1944:

The reason the species-level templates don't need moved is because typically the species is the lowest ranking taxon. In the event that there are subspecies/infraspecies, you'll need to move the template

3587:

We really need "an idiots guide" with friendly wording for this stuff. Even fairly seasoned editors like myself aren't always technically inclined, and new editors will probably be really scared by it.

2395:

and reported on a single page, for a human to fix, or request specific bot assistance if there were too many articles affected? I am coming to think that that method would be vastly preferable to this.

1949:

update the taxon parameter if the article has that parameter. The automatic taxobox was developed with taxonomic revisions in mind, but not with pagemoves in mind. Of course, it'd be wonderful if you

767:

So long as it's only semi-protected, I'd go for that. Also-- that script looks interesting...I think I might start using it. That would certainly be helpful in tracking vandalism. For example, if the

2859:

has an automatic taxobox with the same reference showing up. There are intermediate versions which don't display the reference. The correct display comes from converting the manual taxobox parameter

1399:, the template that should have been producing the taxonomy was at "Template:Taxonom/Anatoma americana" instead. I have now moved (and updated) that template, and I think the taxobox is now fine. -- 186:

Follow up question. How do we turn off italics? The commmon name here is the same as the generic name, but the article name is about the family in toto, not the genus, so should not be in italics.

4431: 2694:

article. But if all those "-authority" parameters were removed, would the authorities and references appear? I'm still confused! (And still bothered about the APG system issue I raised above.)

383: 2661:

What about the more general issue of sourcing the taxonomy itself? E.g. we've agreed to use APG for angiosperms, but the taxoboxes which use this system don't say so or provide the reference.

2197:

to become standard. The ICBN has been recommending italics for all taxa (and it does cover higher taxa, unlike the ICZN) for some time, and almost no publications follow that recommendation (

925:. Googling for it returns its taxobox template on the second page. It could be confusing for people who might think that the hits on their templates are the articles on the taxa themselves.-- 3848: 2412: 1039:

Those deliciously inviting 'edit' links exist on a lot of Knowledge articles; why not noindex those too? Pages that are overly vulnerable to vandalism should be semi-protected, not hidden.

1085:, and stumble into that page instead, he has no way of knowing if that was Knowledge's article itself or even if there was an article on the taxon whose template he's looking at currently. 2522:

in Polysporangiophyta, or whether it refers to a definition of the polysporangiophyte clade, or whether it was the person who assigned Horneophytopsida to the polysporangiophytes... etc.

4752:

RE Peter's last comment-- All it takes to start a project on Knowledge is one man and some determination. You might be able to interest me in it to some extent...I'm into paleobiology.

1392: 688: 415: 1748:

Also, to answer JoJan's question, if the scientific name of the species has been revised, you can, as Martin suggested, perform the following steps. The example here would apply to

761: 609: 771:

article were vandalized again, you'd simply need to go into edit mode and boom-- most recent edit summaries right next to all the transcluded templates! Sounds very handy! Thanks!

4493:

While Kim's certainly partially right about the level of controversy here, I must point out Stem's not too far off regarding controversy in a few areas. Namely, my automations of

3250:

This was fixed a while back but seems to be happening again for some reason... that is, genera are not italicized in display_children when collapse is active. Any workaround? See

2241: 1096:, as searching for them on google only returns their template taxoboxes (no article page after all), and google lists them in the first page itself (being in Knowledge). See here 4718:

removed by a single editor for his or her convenience. You can try to argue your case, but pushing it through one project at a time and then presenting it to the community as a

2371: 2339:

invokes always_display where it needs to. I've re-worded the key that appears on the taxonomy/ pages to "manual/automatic override". Are there any cases where a taxon without

2336: 4452: 4215:, and I dare say a few disadvantages. However, I would still like to know what it couldn't achieve in order to be able to compare the two (and the existing system) properly. -- 2890:

in every taxobox on the species pages. The documentation available at present doesn't explain if it's possible to display such references automatically, and if so how to do it.

2882:

The second issue is how to store this information in the taxonomic hierarchy so that it gets displayed automatically. If, for example, I created articles on all the species of

2304: 237:

Speaking of this, is there consensus for going around changing taxoboxes to the automatic version? Right now these actions seem to be creating more problems than it is fixing.

2391:

instances yet where inconsistencies in taxonomy have been corrected (which was, after all, the point)? Are they inconsistencies that couldn't have been picked up by a clever

2255: 4758: 4524: 3831: 3758:

Are you suggesting that if I edit an article on some critter and switch from the old to the automated taxobox, I should seek the consensus of the community before doing so?

3296: 2827: 2259: 887: 809: 2903:

moved the actual citation out of the taxobox in favour of a named ref tag. This action makes copying and pasting this information between related articles more difficult.)

848:

Didn't mean to set a precedent - just seemed the best solution to that specific problem. Set /inactive's parent to "life", if you like, to keep it out of the cleanup cat.

721:

Isn't there some sort of bot on Knowledge that goes around protecting all templates that appear on 40 or more pages? I find it odd we haven't seen the likes of it yet...

3630: 3597: 3022: 569:

is still growing, despite the main problem being fixed, and will soon breach 3,000 entries. It seems it takes a while for the floodwaters to subside after heavy rain. --

315: 195: 4670: 4417:] cycle because that will zoom in rather quickly to where there is disagreement that to demand an halt to all implementation which mostly does not cause any issues. -- 3649: 2968: 2703: 2682: 2034: 1489: 998: 958: 403:

and finding a huge red glaring error message instead of a taxobox. The three articles, out of the 100+ with broken taxoboxes that I have looked at, have unique errors.

288:

No, the problems are because these automatic taxoboxes are not intuitive to ignoramuses like myself. I've been reading the documentation trying to work out how to stop

3620: 4745: 4705: 4644: 4512: 4144: 3800: 2421: 1787: 1694: 1617: 371: 4263:

unusual cases, and experience of what editors need and struggle to do. We'd be very grateful for any input you might have in the documentation, as it progresses.

3985: 3958: 3612: 1100:. And since it's Knowledge, I would assume people would click on it thinking it's Knowledge's article on it and instead find themselves in the innards of templates. 388:

Please STOP! editing this template until you know what you are doing, everyone. And please STOP! adding it to articles until you know what you are doing, everyone.

4180:. If no more testing is required, then we already have all the information we need to decide between the two systems from the automatic taxoboxes already in place. 3580: 3370: 3276: 3016: 2998: 2927: 2161: 2142: 2119: 2100: 1902: 1168: 1131: 1034: 876: 865: 843: 832: 727: 348: 301: 223: 181: 147: 3091: 2670: 2621: 1703:

parameter be implemented? Will this affect the way the taxonomy is generated, aside from allowing the genus to be displayed correctly regardless of reassignment?

3893: 3767: 3051: 3039: 939: 777: 627: 618: 4733: 4689: 4597: 4572: 4111: 1968: 1802: 1515: 1441: 4038:

Your edit summaries say "Standardize taxobox". What was your motivation in doing this? What exactly were you attempting to "standardize" the taxoboxes with?

4011: 3920: 4563:

changed the taxoboxes in a small number of articles which already existed covering closely related taxa. This seems sensible to me as it ensures consistency.

3350: 3233: 3202: 3131: 2942: 2597: 2549: 2023: 1157: 4540: 4488: 4421: 4407: 4378: 3864: 1823: 593: 578: 167: 4631:, although the other projects had clear divides, which have since been overcome). Right now it would seem the project using this on the widest scale is the 1043: 1008: 556: 459: 4360: 4337: 4314: 4280: 4224: 4073: 4055: 2478: 2461: 2405: 2360: 2331: 2216: 1924: 1741: 1675: 1655: 1465: 1058: 498: 473: 257: 2801:

The third type is the type which appears in the references section of an article. For those who don't know how to produce these, it's pretty simple-- add

712: 3714: 3691: 3263: 2841: 2435: 530: 283: 4635:, and they're doing a wonderful job with rolling it out, from what I've seen, with no opposition yet (just a little resistance to learning how to use it 2906:

I'm afraid that that is the only solution at the moment: it's the same as what you'd have to do in a normal taxobox. Incidentally, you might find that

1599:

But it'll be in the wrong place, increasing the overall confusion and opacity by another needless degree. The last thing we need is for the taxonomy of

1542: 1408: 663: 2004: 1582: 4418: 4375: 3444: 3316:

is too long/complex, editors will just give up. Perhaps the "Advanced uses" section needs to be a separate page which covers all the 'tricky' stuff.

637: 2440:

Whilst automating taxoboxes I've come across several genera that have been listed in the "subdivision" list of two different families. By using the

2318:. It is fortunate that these cases are major taxa, and accordingly are not appearing in taxoboxes where they shouldn't be, but a bug which allows 881:

I thought some more about it. What it boils down to is that we've got a placeholder taxon, correct? Do we want to treat placeholders differently?

2644:

article does, but you have to be careful as to how this is done, using parameters like "greatgreatgrandparent_authority". I'm still finding the

4791: 3899: 3530:

The taxobox is throwing an error. How do I fix it? (addressed in part in /Step-by-step; ideally the error messages should be self-explanatory)

3482: 3787: 3752: 3065: 2432: 606: 527: 2815: 2236: 2067: 2028:

Great! I recommend we convert existing species automatic taxoboxes to this where possible, although if smeone discovers a bug, please stop.

1630:, which creates an automatic taxobox based on the "genus" parameter, the fills out the rest based on a "specific epithet" parameter (called 1565:

to the automatic taxobox, then the corresponding taxonomy template won't need moving, and the taxobox should continue to display correctly.

3674:). Anybody, please feel free to improve my style, or to expand other pages! (I've copied what was at /doc to the appropriate sub-page.) 3400: 2978: 914: 796: 3949:

So I wholeheartedly agree that a full bot-switchover would be a bad idea, but equally I encourage fellow editors to experiment with them.

3325: 3433: 2876: 1503: 739:

If consensus is for protecting everything and all the pages can be matched by a regular expression (e.g. all are subpages of some page),

354: 292:

displaying the genus, because the family is now split into three genera. If these things are so much damn work are they really worth it?

2910:

makes it a bit quicker to create species-level automatic taxoboxes, as you don't need to create a taxonomy/ template for each species.

1502:

I just have made during the last couple of months more than 500 moves or redirects and I've still have more than 250 to perform (see :

152:

Wait, no, I didn't mess it up. Taxobot messed it up - I reverted it. I did add the superfamily/etc - if you want we can take those out.

2504: 97: 89: 84: 4030: 547:

is still broken, and I can't work out what's wrong with it. In this instance, it looks like Bob's new purge button may be to blame. --

4462:

I am not really proposing my alternative as a well-thought-through system, and I'm very open to suggestions. In fact, it's more of a

4095:-- would you check that out since you're the template loop expert? I mentioned it a few days ago but it's not had any attention yet. 3568: 3245: 126: 72: 67: 59: 4383:

On the contrary, I expect that any controversial changes (and implementing the automatic taxobox in an article that previously used

4291: 4130:

Was there consensus for replacing automatic taxoboxes with manual ones with no substance for doing so other than attracting editors?

4034: 1385: 1638:; if it seems a good idea, I'll modify it so that there's a "species" entry in the taxonomy list and we can use this for species. 1117:

Maybe if they could be turned into quasi-articles themselves like categories and be a bit more browsing-friendly for non-editors?--

919:

Is this intended behavior? I noticed it after googling for reference in a belemnite genus I recently converted to use autotaxobox,

208:. When I made the autotaxobox I guess I was thinking the title was the genus name, this is pretty common for monogeneric families. 4196:

as a child. An editor would be able to examine the discrepancy and might choose to add the subfamily Fictivinae to the taxobox at

4032: 4028: 2187: 3671: 3182: 3166: 3102: 4413:

reason do not see why you demand a community wide consensus first. Anyway, I think it would be far wiser to treat this with the

4301:(basically, anything with an edit summary of "automate taxobox"), they must not continue. This is a proposed alternative, not a 3925:

I'm rather in favour of automatic taxoboxes, and I'm currently trying to use them on articles I create or substantially revise.

3143:

To respond to the P.S. first: I got a bit annoyed by the predominance of "animals" all over the paleo stuff; just look at the

2203:

being one notable exception). Knowledge's policy is to follow the tendencies of the wider world of publishing, and that means

4089: 3170:

more that detailed studies are done of individual species and genera, the less certain is the phylogeny and hence taxonomy.)

2953:

The third (and unanswered!) issue is whether and how a source for the general taxonomy, such as APG where used, can be shown.

2676:

for not doing this before then; originally I was only doing this where I included a taxon not already included on Knowledge.

2311: 3852: 3422: 241: 4476: 4229:

To respond, here are a few advantages to the Automatic Taxobox system. These are just what trip of the top of my head:

1417:

Oop. That was my work. Are they synonyms? If so why did they have separate articles before? Have also removed the entry

4398:

consensus, and is of course entirely acceptable. Foisting an unwieldy system on areas where it is not wanted is not. --

4078: 3805:

Also-- we're not in "pilot" phase...this thing's developed and released, so to speak. Bug-free, as far as we're aware.

3539:

I'd like to know the gory technical details of this template (partly addressed by inline comments in the template code)

748: 566: 204:– this parameter is treated as a common name that will be the title of the taxobox/article, so it won't be italicized. 1622:

Oh, I see; I guess I'd misunderstood. Yes, you're quite right, it won't do to have the taxonomy at a different place.

975:

also help prevent the templates vandalism discussed above by making the templates themselves a bit more inconspicuous.

4650: 671:

The category appears not to be filled with an editor who made well over 100 articles in a very short amount of time,

422: 3025:! I still think that there isn't much reason to move the authority parameter to the back end to me honest though.-- 4447: 1941:

Hmmm....not sure why you aren't seeing the edit link. What operating system are you using? What version of Firefox?

1670: 343: 278: 218: 162: 142: 4636: 4200:

if that would solve the problem. If, on the other hand, someone found that the hundreds of articles on species of

4459:

week to a talk page, or it might all be held off-site. All the power would be placed in the hands of the editors.

2511: 2444:

parameter (and assigning the genus to the correct family), the problem is not just fixed, but won't occur again.

47: 17: 3147:

article – plants seem to get about 2 sentences on the angiosperms! Compare the coverage of, say, dinosaurs with

306:

Okay I worked it out eventually. Might I suggest some education and "for dummies" documentation for us dummies?

4138:

wouldn't support a full-bot switchover myself if it were doing things under the covers without human guidance.

3667: 3455: 3411: 2872: 2821:

P.s. -- In converting from taxobox to automatic taxobox, you don't need to alter any ref-tag-style references.

2606:

needed only at the lowest level. It is needed for every level that is covered on that page. For a taxon like

2381: 444: 4696: 2856: 2849: 789: 4297: 1781:

I agree, this is another annoyance that needs some ironing out if possible, although it could be far worse.

562: 3728: 3036: 3932:

Technical: they are quite difficult to create and use, and the documentation is still "under development".

967:

Hm... doesn't wikipedia have a way for rendering a page invisible to search bots already? For example, in

4295: 1707: 1635: 310: 296: 190: 176: 121: 3981: 3889: 3763: 3593: 2532:

I hope that one of those solutions will work for you. If not, we'll have to see what we can work out.

4209: 4174: 4060:

The main intention with those edits was to flag up the work needed to improve each of those stubs (all

3697:

some changes; if you can see any scope for improvement, please feel free to make edits or suggestions.

3543: 3313: 2748: 2648: 482: 38: 4293: 3527:

I'd like to understand the parameters that are unique to the automatic taxobox (largely met by /Setup)

1140:) to include _NOINDEX_ if an article exists, and to add a "what is this page" message if it doesn't. 264:

I thought there was. I'll stop replacing for now. But I want to point out that these two problems wrt

205: 4299: 2570:

and if I present only one such taxonomy when there are well-attested alternatives then this violates

430: 2981:

and added some info (inc about refs) to a page behind a "more" link. Hopefully this'll be helpful.

1209: 1962:

any, but I'm a bit too busy right now (and likely until summer) to work on any substantial coding.

984:

On the other hand, not sure if you guys intend it to be completely unsearchable by google though.--

740: 1884:

specifically for each species' template and changing its genus would be as simple as changing the

4753: 4740: 4700: 4666: 4639: 4568: 4519: 4507: 4139: 4107: 3954: 3826: 3795: 3644: 3608: 3575: 3546:(largely met by /map, which could be expanded with a little more info of what each template does) 3472: 3365: 3321: 3291: 3271: 3229: 3087: 3046: 3011: 2964: 2938: 2822: 2810: 2699: 2677: 2666: 2593: 2500: 2416: 2231: 2156: 2114: 2062: 2029: 1963: 1782: 1484: 1189: 1163: 953: 882: 871: 838: 804: 793: 772: 722: 520: 358: 3109:". This'll make anything assigned to Zosterophyllopsida (?) display a ? next to Lycopodiophyta. 406:

Please stop experimenting with wikipedia taxa articles. Please find a way to use the sandbox. --

2617: 1984: 1053: 307: 293: 253: 187: 173: 118: 3977: 3885: 3759: 3589: 3533:

I'd like to do something a little more complicated (extinction, question marks, references...)

2073:

A couple of representative pages would help me to get an idea of what might work. A separate

3844:

rather than here, since this page is unlikely to get the necessary broad spectrum of editors.

3304: 2792: 1324: 1137: 602: 2525:

Another alternative would be to specify, in the taxobox on "Tortillicaulis", something like

949: 695:

but will hit most IP "noise". (I wonder whether anyone could be persuaded to code one...)

4729: 4685: 4613: 4593: 4536: 4484: 4443: 4403: 4310: 4220: 4069: 3860: 3783: 3748: 2474: 2401: 2327: 2276: 2212: 1819: 1690: 1666: 1613: 1538: 1404: 870:

That might be the way to go. I gotta run now, but I'll do that later if it isn't done yet.

743:

could be used to auto-protect all current and future pages just as is done for editnotices.

589: 574: 552: 494: 455: 339: 274: 214: 158: 138: 8: 4232:

Accountability: under this system, a reference can be provided for every node in the tree

3809: 2907: 2207:

italicising the names of higher taxa of animals and plants for the foreseeable future. --

1980: 1765:

Update the binomial name in the taxobox to to new name (I assume you know how to do that)

1627: 684: 584:

at a time, and not being able to quickly remove it seems like quite a liability to me. --

411: 3524:

I'd like to create an automatic list of child taxa in a taxobox (automatic or otherwise)

4662: 4564: 4463: 4354: 4331: 4274: 4103: 4049: 4005: 3950: 3914: 3841: 3708: 3685: 3604: 3562: 3344: 3317: 3259: 3225: 3196: 3125: 3083: 2992: 2960: 2934: 2921: 2695: 2662: 2589: 2543: 2496: 2486: 2455: 2354: 2298: 2183: 2136: 2094: 2055: 2012: 1998: 1891: 1735: 1649: 1576: 1454: 1430: 1346: 1204: 1151: 1120: 1023: 987: 968: 928: 859: 826: 706: 657: 469: 4720: 4151:

What is occurring now is not something that has been discussed. Advice was sought on

4124: 3819: 3502:

Well, Canada rather than Europe, but I was more thinking of a virtual sit-down... (-:

3021:

It took ma a little while to find the discussion on authorities in the archives, but

2782: 2613: 2567: 2225: 2077: 2047: 1768:

Using the edit link in the taxobox, edit the taxonomy at the species level. Replace

1181: 1050: 906: 783: 249: 4290:

disadvantages, and unless and until consensus can be demonstrated for edits such as

3312:

Where to document this stuff? It's difficult, I agree. If the main documentation at

2895:(As a side issue, it was unhelpful that in the middle of the process of getting the 4582: 4472: 4387: 4164: 3031: 2730: 1040: 1005: 758: 634: 238: 3551:

Do you think that this is the best approach? Is there anything that I've missed?

1105:

This is what it looks like when I google the others I've mentioned at the moment:

4725: 4681: 4623:

had full consensus for adopting-- that's hope for any change-pushers right there

4589: 4532: 4480: 4438: 4399: 4306: 4244:

Inconsistencies only need fixing once (when the automatic taxobox is established)

4216: 4065: 3856: 3779: 3744: 3512:

I'd like a brief introduction to this template (perhaps this even can be on /doc)

3251: 2470: 2397: 2323: 2272: 2208: 2199: 1920: 1815: 1798: 1686: 1661: 1609: 1534: 1511: 1400: 1381: 1373: 1281: 1092: 1081: 585: 570: 548: 490: 451: 334: 269: 209: 153: 133: 1660:

It would be nice to have the taxonomy templates for the species anyway, though.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4654: 4632: 4134:

names. In my eyes, it's a completely different set of rationale for automation.

2900: 2690: 2640: 2608: 2571: 2322:

to be accidentally invoked could be rather serious, and needs investigation. --

1261: 921: 680: 407: 2283:"Family" is a major rank and so displays by default. You may wish to specify 2178:

italics. So I'd say don't work too hard on splitting off a separate template.

4680:

was trying to challenge, and I see now that my message hasn't got through. --

4658: 4649:

I've tried to discuss taxonomy & taxoboxes generally and specifically at

4620: 4555: 4414: 4350: 4344: 4327: 4321: 4270: 4264: 4120: 4045: 4039: 4001: 3995: 3910: 3904: 3704: 3698: 3681: 3675: 3558: 3552: 3340: 3334: 3255: 3192: 3186: 3136:(P.S: nice work on the article! Thanks for all you're doing on early plants.} 3121: 3115: 2988: 2982: 2917: 2911: 2629: 2539: 2533: 2492: 2451: 2445: 2350: 2344: 2294: 2288: 2179: 2132: 2126: 2090: 2084: 1994: 1988: 1731: 1725: 1645: 1639: 1572: 1566: 1147: 1141: 855: 849: 822: 816: 702: 696: 653: 647: 465: 105: 2842:

Template:Automatic_taxobox#Converting_from_a_Taxobox_to_an_Automatic_taxobox

1474:

Indeed, that's probably the biggest flaw with this system. By including the

3876: 3144: 2110: 672: 633:

does work, and returns "animalia".) Why that function fails, I'm not sure.

436:

was to blame for a message about "Opishthokontanematoda" on our article on

4085:

Speaking of which, Martin-- we do have a template loop error currently on

2557:

Surely automatic taxoboxes should not behave differently from manual ones

2174: 4467: 4099: 4061: 3881: 3071: 3070:

Another thing I can't quite figure out... If you look at the taxobox for

3026: 2726:

Firstly and foremost, there's the "authority". The authority (denoted in

2392: 2262:, both of which are currently needed to prevent inappropriate use of the 1874:

subtaxa to reflect the change (that is, if they use automated taxoboxes).

1271: 755: 4247:

No bot needs coding and maintaining (it's not entirely clear that a bot

2654:

template tricky; you can't just change "taxobox" to "automatic taxobox".

2106: 1916: 1794: 1507: 1377: 1291: 1251: 421:

It doesn't look like it was experimentation in this case. An IP vandal

4192:

is listed in the family Fictaceae, the family Fictaceae does not list

2855:

has a manual taxobox which shows a reference for the genus authority.

2722:

There are several different "references" we all may be discussing...

1221: 426:

difficult to find where the problem is. (Who would have guessed that

1842:

taxoboxes were actually my fault, so I apologize for that. But they

4498: 3874:

assignment should be followed by a question mark. Examples include

3636:

are designed especially for testing. Test to your heart's content!

1561:

I'm not sure I agree; if, as Bob mentioned above, you add the line

1241: 400: 2514:

are only meant to support the data contained within that template.

1634:). I've just created a very quick knock-up, which you can see at 4494: 1423: 1301: 601:

Is this issue also causing other problems, like lack of color at

544: 396: 4155:

to implement automatic taxoboxes, but without any discussion on

3825:

might be what you're thinking of that's being tested right now.

3778:, which appears to be the current strategy of its proponents. -- 3734:

a page needs are kept on that page; ease of editing; etc.), and

2367:

Ah. I hadn't spotted that those pages were using the derivative

3743:

such edits, and they must cease until it is shown otherwise. --

3075: 1759:

Ensure the following code is present in the automatic taxobox:

1718:

to generate the binomial (and, anon, to add the line "Species:

1231: 1110: 1106: 1097: 945: 384:

Automatic taxobox Broken! again on major articles including FAs

4127:

talk pages even at irregular intervals could have missed this.

2491:

Why are references not showing up in automatic taxoboxes? See

4184:

automated system properly (missing elements in the taxonomy,

3151:

prehistoric plants. So having a copy of Taylor et al.'s 2009

3112:

Where do you think the best place for us to document this is?

2888:

parent_authority = Edwards 1979<ref name=Edwards1979/: -->

321: 289: 265: 113: 106: 2861:

genus_authority = Edwards 1979<ref name=Edwards1979/: -->

2840:

I think part of my problem is that more needs to be said at

2431:

correct an outdated Cronquist system to the APG III system.

1809:

My observation (not objection), was that if a genus article

2246:

I noticed that automatic taxobony templates which omit the

768: 440:?) By adding the text "nematoda" to that template, outside 437: 392: 4506:

working on it, I'd be happy to help debug as I find time.

3942: 4254:

Copy-and-paste errors avoided when creating new taxoboxes

2766:. This reference should indicate the taxonomic authority. 172:

Not really bothered about superfamily, ta for fixing it!

3670:

with an index, and made a start on one of the subpages (

2848:(not "remove") the authority parameters. As an example, 2242:

Taxa defaulting to always display when parameter omitted

464:

Edit: NM. Can we protect these templates from IP edits?

2527:|parent authority=taxon established by <ref.../: --> 1090:

Much more for taxa which do not have articles yet like

4531:

Thanks, Bob. I think this is a reasonable approach. --

4432:

Discussion of alternative: find and list discrepancies

4257:

Uniform format of parameters (e.g. extinction daggers)

2865:

authority = Edwards 1979<ref name=Edwards1979/: -->

478:

I have semi-protected all the taxonomy templates from

3521:

I'd like to convert a taxobox to an automatic taxobox

2314:, you will still see "Yes (manual override)" against 112:

Someone replaced the perfectly functional taxobox at

4713:

how I would propose going about it. I would propose

4235:

Automatic listing of child taxa in taxoboxes (using

3175:

Template:Taxonomy/Zosterophyllopsida/Lycopodopsida/?

2805:tags surrounding a citation template of some sort. 2147:Alright, I'll add that to my list of things to do 3097:It sounds to me like the best solution is to set 2510:Because they're not meant to. The references in 2061:template that automatically italicizes all taxa? 1706:You can see the implementation in the example at 1685:genus article when it is moved to a new title. -- 1480: 3388:List of links to automatic taxobox documentation 2583:I should add that I'm a strong supporter of the 2343:or a major taxonomic rank is always displayed? 132:Wow, I really messed that up, sorry about that. 4466:than anything else at this stage. Basically, a 3542:I'd like a list of all the templates called by 3515:I'd like an overview of how this template works 3483:Knowledge:WikiProject Plants/Automatic taxobox 2638:possible to display references, as indeed the 2554:There are two different issues here, I think. 3509:I thought about offering the following links 2979:Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Taxonomy 2867:, which I didn't properly understand – the 2083:might be a good solution, performancewise. 1603:to be at ], or any similar example. Setting 1136:As a start, I've modified the templates (at 268:had nothing to do with automatic taxoboxes. 2877:Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/Step-by-step 2871:parameters are not explained at present at 1504:Knowledge:WikiProject_Gastropods/Unaccepted 4554:hand, as always, there are special cases. 3855:, albeit without addressing that point. -- 3518:I'd like to create a new automatic taxobox 4251:be able to deal with every inconsistency) 1391:There needs to be appropriate content at 4305:replacement. Kindly treat it as such. -- 3445:Automatic taxobox/doc/Taxonomy templates 2250:parameter, are defaulting to a value of 391:I am tired of clicking on articles like 4790:was invoked but never defined (see the 3929:there are still problems of two kinds: 3672:Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/advanced 3010:an authority in the reference section. 837:Oh. Are we doing that with empty taxa? 615:The reason for that appears to be that 14: 4619:(which, if you recall, the collective 3943:#Question_marks_in_automatic_taxoboxes 3183:Template:Taxonomy/Zosterophyllopsida/? 3167:Template:Taxonomy/Zosterophyllopsida/? 3103:Template:Taxonomy/Zosterophyllopsida/? 2977:By way of documentation I've abridged 2809:Hopefully that answers your question. 1074:, not on how to browse for other taxa. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4624: 3637: 3464: 3066:Question marks in automatic taxoboxes 1714:to generate the higher taxonomy, and 4777: 4098:Although the article which uses it, 3355:Sitting down together to discuss it 3165:Back to the main issue. Ok, suppose 2769:The second type of reference is the 2148: 915:Template shows up in Google searches 25: 4782: 3401:Editnotices/Group/Template:Taxonomy 2863:to the automatic taxobox parameter 2413:Category:Deprecated taxon templates 1888:field) would be a nice addition. -- 1710:(now also copied here), which uses 23: 4475:), or somewhere off-site (such as 3434:Automatic taxobox/doc/Step-by-step 1814:there has never been a problem. -- 1563:|taxon=(name of taxon before move) 1079:If a person were looking for, say 749:User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod 567:Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup 24: 4808: 4651:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Plants 3536:I'd like a list of all parameters 3246:Italics in display_children again 2764:|greatgreatgrandparent_authority= 1393:Template:Taxonomy/Anatoma proxima 248:still issues to be worked out. -- 4661:) and his views are well known. 4625: 3638: 3465: 2149: 1395:. Since the article had been at 1208: 29: 3286:Retracting denial above...this 2512:Template:Taxonomy/Tortilicaulis 1958:parameters updated accordingly. 1844:were listed under the taxoboxes 1774:Paragenius speciosa|P. speciosa 355:"Automatic Taxobox for Dummies" 18:Template talk:Automatic taxobox 3668:Template:Automatic taxobox/doc 3181:, in addition to the existing 3173:Then I suppose that we need a 2886:, I don't want to have to put 2873:Template:Automatic taxobox/doc 13: 1: 4241:Shorter code in article pages 4102:, displays the taxobox fine. 3277:06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 3264:05:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 2875:, although they do appear at 2598:23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 2550:21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 2505:21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 2337:Template:incertae sedis taxon 2217:07:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 2188:06:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 2162:04:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 2143:04:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 2120:04:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 2101:04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 2068:03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1770:Geniosus speciosa|G. speciosa 1481:#Taxon parameter, moved pages 1372:What is wrong in the taxobox 888:03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 3847:My suggested alternative is 2479:23:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2462:13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 2436:22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2422:22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2406:21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2361:21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2332:18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2305:18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 2035:23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2024:22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2005:22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 1969:03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 1925:18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1903:18:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1824:18:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1803:18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1788:16:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1742:16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1695:14:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1676:22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 1656:14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1618:13:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1583:13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1543:10:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1516:09:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1490:22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1466:17:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1442:17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1409:16:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1386:16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1199:Automatic taxobox/Archive 9 1169:03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 1158:18:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1132:20:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1111:http://i.imgur.com/vW73O.jpg 1107:http://i.imgur.com/tAgcF.jpg 1098:http://i.imgur.com/Vo1Ru.jpg 1059:19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1044:17:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1035:17:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1009:17:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 999:17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 959:16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 940:13:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 877:16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 866:16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 844:16:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 833:14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 810:04:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 797:04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 778:16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 762:16:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 728:23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 713:15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 689:15:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 664:15:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 642:I've fixed this problem for 638:13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 610:13:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 594:07:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 579:06:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 557:06:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 531:12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 499:07:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 474:06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 460:06:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 416:05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 372:04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 349:07:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 316:03:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 302:03:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 284:05:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 258:20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 242:10:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 224:06:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 196:04:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 182:04:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 168:04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 148:04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 127:04:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 7: 4090:Taxonomy/Horneophytopsida/? 3423:Automatic taxobox/doc/Setup 2719:I'll clear up what I can-- 1708:Template:Speciesbox/sandbox 1636:Template:Speciesbox/sandbox 623:does not return anything. ( 10: 4813: 4759:23:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4746:15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4734:08:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4706:07:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4690:07:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4671:10:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4645:07:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 4598:18:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 4573:18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 4541:07:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 4525:21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 3715:02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 3544:Template:Automatic taxobox 3314:Template:Automatic taxobox 3297:21:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 2237:21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1724:" to the taxonomy list). 1421:in the list of species in 333:think they're worth it... 320:I meant that the title of 4724:is extremely bad form. -- 4513:22:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 4489:19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4453:19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4422:19:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4408:18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4379:18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4361:19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4338:19:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4315:18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4281:18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4225:17:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4145:16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4112:17:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4074:14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4056:14:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 4012:14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3992:|parent=Amphibia/Reptilia 3986:13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3959:12:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3921:14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3894:10:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3865:09:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3832:09:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3801:09:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3788:08:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3768:07:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3753:06:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 3692:02:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 3650:23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 3613:12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 3598:08:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 3581:08:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 3569:13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 3371:03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 3351:20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 3326:16:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 3234:12:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 3203:20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 3132:15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 3092:13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 3052:08:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 3040:07:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 3017:03:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 2999:15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2969:09:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2943:16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2928:15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2828:03:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2816:02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2704:01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2683:01:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2671:00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2622:00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2312:the state before I edited 1811:with an automatic taxobox 1352: 1345: 1330: 1323: 1205:Scientific classification 1203: 1198: 3941:As I understand it (see 1761:|taxon=Geniosus speciosa 741:MediaWiki:Titleblacklist 3179:|parent=Lycopodposida/? 2688:parameters and saw the 2193:Yes, but it may take a 357:and see if that helps. 324:was italicized because 4699:today on the news...) 3666:Right. I've replaced 2762:, etc, all the way to 1985:Template:Subspeciesbox 1838:The conversion of the 565:fixed Bryozoa. Sadly, 526:and suggest a change. 4415:Bold, Revert, Discuss 3456:Automatic taxobox/map 3412:Automatic taxobox/doc 3270:Looks correct to me. 2744:, etc, is denoted in 2254:. (For examples, see 1979:I'm now recommending 1852:unranked_superfamilia 1138:Template:Taxonomy key 1072:set up auto taxoboxes 621:|Loxodonta africana}} 603:African Bush Elephant 563:reverting that change 42:of past discussions. 4786:The named reference 3729:This has got to stop 2382:Don't edit this line 2372:incertae sedis taxon 2341:|Always_display=true 2173:Just fyi, PhyloCode 948:is responsible for " 445:Don't edit this line 2908:Template:Speciesbox 2738:|species_authority= 2125:straightforwards. 1981:Template:Speciesbox 1754:Paragenius speciosa 1628:Template:Speciesbox 1362:Scissurella proxima 353:Sabine, please see 4755:Bob the WikipediaN 4742:Bob the WikipediaN 4702:Bob the WikipediaN 4641:Bob the WikipediaN 4605:strongly encourage 4521:Bob the WikipediaN 4509:Bob the WikipediaN 4464:thought experiment 4237:|display children= 4141:Bob the WikipediaN 3898:In fact, there is 3828:Bob the WikipediaN 3797:Bob the WikipediaN 3646:Bob the WikipediaN 3577:Bob the WikipediaN 3474:Bob the WikipediaN 3463:(my favorite one! 3367:Bob the WikipediaN 3293:Bob the WikipediaN 3273:Bob the WikipediaN 3048:Bob the WikipediaN 3013:Bob the WikipediaN 2824:Bob the WikipediaN 2812:Bob the WikipediaN 2760:|parent_authority= 2679:Bob the WikipediaN 2442:|display children= 2418:Bob the WikipediaN 2233:Bob the WikipediaN 2158:Bob the WikipediaN 2116:Bob the WikipediaN 2064:Bob the WikipediaN 2031:Bob the WikipediaN 1965:Bob the WikipediaN 1784:Bob the WikipediaN 1486:Bob the WikipediaN 1165:Bob the WikipediaN 969:Template:User page 955:Bob the WikipediaN 884:Bob the WikipediaN 873:Bob the WikipediaN 840:Bob the WikipediaN 806:Bob the WikipediaN 794:Bob the Wikipedian 774:Bob the WikipediaN 724:Bob the WikipediaN 644:Loxodonta africana 4697:such an invention 4451: 4419:Kim van der Linde 4376:Kim van der Linde 4358: 4335: 4278: 4210:automatic taxobox 4175:Automatic taxobox 4053: 4009: 3918: 3712: 3689: 3566: 3491: 3490: 3479: 3478: 3348: 3200: 3129: 2996: 2925: 2749:automatic taxobox 2742:|genus_authority= 2649:Automatic taxobox 2547: 2459: 2358: 2302: 2140: 2098: 2002: 1750:Geniosus speciosa 1739: 1674: 1653: 1580: 1397:Anatoma americana 1370: 1369: 1356:Anatoma americana 1155: 863: 830: 710: 661: 483:Taxonomy/Animalia 367: 363: 347: 282: 222: 166: 146: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4804: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4789: 4781: 4756: 4743: 4703: 4642: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4618: 4612: 4587: 4581: 4522: 4510: 4441: 4392: 4386: 4348: 4325: 4268: 4238: 4214: 4208: 4179: 4173: 4169: 4163: 4142: 4094: 4088: 4079:A list of errors 4043: 3999: 3993: 3908: 3900:already approval 3829: 3824: 3818: 3814: 3808: 3798: 3702: 3679: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3635: 3631:Taxonomy/Test-50 3629: 3625: 3619: 3578: 3556: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3454: 3449: 3443: 3438: 3432: 3427: 3421: 3416: 3410: 3405: 3399: 3384: 3383: 3368: 3338: 3294: 3274: 3190: 3180: 3119: 3108: 3107:Lycopodiophyta/? 3100: 3049: 3034: 3029: 3023:here is the link 3014: 2986: 2915: 2889: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2825: 2813: 2804: 2797: 2791: 2787: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2729: 2680: 2653: 2647: 2537: 2528: 2449: 2443: 2419: 2386: 2380: 2376: 2370: 2348: 2342: 2321: 2317: 2292: 2286: 2270: 2265: 2253: 2249: 2248:|always_display= 2234: 2230: 2224: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2130: 2117: 2088: 2082: 2076: 2065: 2052: 2046: 2032: 2021: 2019: 2017: 1992: 1966: 1957: 1900: 1898: 1896: 1887: 1853: 1849: 1848:unranked_familia 1785: 1775: 1771: 1762: 1729: 1717: 1716:|species=proxima 1713: 1702: 1664: 1643: 1633: 1606: 1570: 1564: 1487: 1477: 1463: 1461: 1459: 1439: 1437: 1435: 1336: 1213: 1212: 1196: 1195: 1186: 1180: 1166: 1145: 1129: 1127: 1125: 1032: 1030: 1028: 996: 994: 992: 956: 937: 935: 933: 911: 905: 885: 874: 853: 841: 820: 807: 775: 725: 700: 651: 632: 626: 622: 525: 519: 487: 481: 449: 443: 435: 431:Taxonomy/Holozoa 429: 369: 365: 361: 337: 313: 308:Sabine's Sunbird 299: 294:Sabine's Sunbird 272: 212: 203: 193: 188:Sabine's Sunbird 179: 174:Sabine's Sunbird 156: 136: 124: 119:Sabine's Sunbird 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4812: 4811: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4787: 4785: 4783: 4778: 4754: 4741: 4701: 4640: 4626: 4616: 4610: 4585: 4579: 4520: 4508: 4434: 4390: 4384: 4236: 4212: 4206: 4177: 4171: 4167: 4161: 4140: 4092: 4086: 3991: 3827: 3822: 3816: 3812: 3806: 3796: 3731: 3645: 3639: 3633: 3627: 3623: 3621:Taxonomy/Test-1 3617: 3576: 3487: 3473: 3466: 3458: 3452: 3447: 3441: 3436: 3430: 3425: 3419: 3414: 3408: 3403: 3397: 3389: 3366: 3307: 3292: 3272: 3252:Dromaeosauridae 3248: 3178: 3177:template, with 3106: 3098: 3068: 3047: 3032: 3027: 3012: 2899:article right, 2887: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2823: 2811: 2802: 2795: 2789: 2785: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2727: 2678: 2651: 2645: 2526: 2495:as an example. 2489: 2441: 2417: 2384: 2378: 2374: 2368: 2340: 2319: 2315: 2284: 2268: 2263: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2232: 2228: 2222: 2157: 2150: 2115: 2080: 2074: 2063: 2058: 2050: 2044: 2030: 2015: 2013: 2011: 1964: 1955: 1894: 1892: 1890: 1885: 1851: 1847: 1783: 1773: 1769: 1760: 1752:being moved to 1715: 1711: 1700: 1631: 1604: 1601:Anatoma proxima 1562: 1485: 1475: 1457: 1455: 1453: 1433: 1431: 1429: 1374:Anatoma proxima 1341: 1334:Anatoma proxima 1332: 1319: 1282:Scissurelloidea 1207: 1192: 1190:Anatoma proxima 1184: 1178: 1164: 1123: 1121: 1119: 1093:Eugnathostomata 1082:Marginocephalia 1056: 1026: 1024: 1022: 990: 988: 986: 954: 931: 929: 927: 917: 909: 903: 883: 872: 839: 805: 786: 773: 723: 630: 624: 616: 523: 517: 485: 479: 447: 441: 433: 427: 386: 359: 311: 297: 201: 191: 177: 122: 110: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4810: 4799: 4798: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4503: 4460: 4433: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4340: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4255: 4252: 4245: 4242: 4239: 4233: 4181: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4135: 4131: 4128: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4083: 4036: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 3978:Petter Bøckman 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3947: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3923: 3886:Petter Bøckman 3868: 3867: 3845: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3771: 3770: 3760:Petter Bøckman 3730: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3590:Petter Bøckman 3549: 3548: 3547: 3540: 3537: 3534: 3531: 3528: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3513: 3507: 3503: 3489: 3488: 3486: 3485: 3480: 3450: 3439: 3428: 3417: 3406: 3394: 3391: 3390: 3387: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3332: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3281: 3280: 3247: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3221: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3113: 3110: 3080:not documented 3067: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3002: 3001: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2901:User:AnomieBOT 2892: 2891: 2880: 2831: 2830: 2807: 2806: 2799: 2767: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2691:Leiosporoceros 2659: 2655: 2641:Leiosporoceros 2609:Leiosporoceros 2581: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2563: 2530: 2523: 2520:Tortillicaulis 2515: 2488: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2438: 2424: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2320:always_display 2316:always_display 2285:|rank=unranked 2264:always_display 2243: 2240: 2220: 2219: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2057: 2054: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1959: 1942: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1766: 1763: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1712:|genus=Anatoma 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1623: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1469: 1468: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1412: 1411: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1359: 1350: 1349: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1328: 1327: 1321: 1320: 1313: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1262:Vetigastropoda 1259: 1255: 1254: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1201: 1200: 1191: 1188: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1114: 1113: 1102: 1101: 1087: 1086: 1076: 1075: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1054: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 979: 978: 977: 976: 962: 961: 922:Belemnotheutis 916: 913: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 785: 782: 781: 780: 753: 752: 744: 733: 732: 731: 730: 719: 669: 668: 667: 666: 599: 598: 597: 596: 581: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 521:Edit protected 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 385: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 318: 261: 260: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 109: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4809: 4793: 4780: 4776: 4760: 4757: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4744: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4731: 4727: 4723: 4722: 4721:fait accompli 4716: 4711: 4707: 4704: 4698: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4678: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4663:Peter coxhead 4660: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4643: 4637: 4634: 4622: 4615: 4607: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4584: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4565:Peter coxhead 4562: 4557: 4556:User:Smith609 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4523: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4511: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4445: 4440: 4423: 4420: 4416: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4389: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4377: 4372: 4362: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4346: 4341: 4339: 4336: 4333: 4329: 4323: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4298: 4296: 4294: 4292: 4289: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4279: 4276: 4272: 4266: 4261: 4256: 4253: 4250: 4246: 4243: 4240: 4234: 4231: 4230: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4211: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4182: 4176: 4166: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4143: 4136: 4132: 4129: 4126: 4122: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104:Peter coxhead 4101: 4097: 4096: 4091: 4084: 4080: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4054: 4051: 4047: 4041: 4037: 4035: 4033: 4031: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4013: 4010: 4007: 4003: 3997: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3951:Peter coxhead 3948: 3944: 3940: 3934: 3931: 3930: 3928: 3924: 3922: 3919: 3916: 3912: 3906: 3901: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3878: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3843: 3839: 3838: 3833: 3830: 3821: 3811: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3799: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3776:fait accompli 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3737: 3716: 3713: 3710: 3706: 3700: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3690: 3687: 3683: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3651: 3648: 3632: 3622: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3605:Peter coxhead 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3579: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3567: 3564: 3560: 3554: 3550: 3545: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3532: 3529: 3526: 3523: 3520: 3517: 3514: 3511: 3510: 3508: 3506:explanations. 3504: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3484: 3481: 3476: 3457: 3451: 3446: 3440: 3435: 3429: 3424: 3418: 3413: 3407: 3402: 3396: 3395: 3393: 3392: 3386: 3385: 3372: 3369: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3349: 3346: 3342: 3336: 3333: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3318:Peter coxhead 3315: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3305:Documentation 3298: 3295: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3278: 3275: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3226:Peter coxhead 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3188: 3184: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3133: 3130: 3127: 3123: 3117: 3114: 3111: 3104: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3084:Peter coxhead 3081: 3077: 3073: 3053: 3050: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3038: 3035: 3030: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3015: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2961:Peter coxhead 2957: 2952: 2951: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935:Peter coxhead 2931: 2930: 2929: 2926: 2923: 2919: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2904: 2902: 2898: 2897:Tortilicaulis 2894: 2893: 2885: 2884:Tortilicaulis 2881: 2878: 2874: 2858: 2854: 2852: 2851:Tortilicaulis 2847: 2844:about how to 2843: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2814: 2800: 2794: 2784: 2768: 2750: 2732: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2720: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696:Peter coxhead 2693: 2692: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2681: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663:Peter coxhead 2660: 2656: 2650: 2643: 2642: 2637: 2632: 2631: 2630:Adoketophyton 2625: 2624: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2590:Peter coxhead 2586: 2582: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2524: 2521: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2497:Peter coxhead 2494: 2493:Tortilicaulis 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2447: 2439: 2437: 2434: 2429: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2390: 2383: 2373: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2346: 2338: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2313: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2290: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2278: 2274: 2261: 2257: 2239: 2238: 2235: 2227: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2176: 2163: 2160: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2128: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2118: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2092: 2086: 2079: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2053: 2049: 2036: 2033: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2009:Awesome! :)-- 2008: 2007: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1996: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1970: 1967: 1960: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1904: 1901: 1899: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1786: 1780: 1767: 1764: 1758: 1757: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1733: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1699:How will the 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1677: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1651: 1647: 1641: 1637: 1629: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1584: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1568: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1491: 1488: 1482: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1449: 1448: 1443: 1440: 1438: 1426: 1425: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1353: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1337: 1335: 1329: 1326: 1325:Binomial name 1322: 1318: 1317: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1280: 1278:Superfamily: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1211: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1194: 1187: 1183: 1170: 1167: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1128: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1060: 1057: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1018: 1017: 1010: 1007: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 995: 983: 982: 981: 980: 974: 970: 966: 965: 964: 963: 960: 957: 951: 950:The Algorithm 947: 944: 943: 942: 941: 938: 936: 924: 923: 912: 908: 889: 886: 880: 879: 878: 875: 869: 868: 867: 864: 861: 857: 851: 847: 846: 845: 842: 836: 835: 834: 831: 828: 824: 818: 813: 812: 811: 808: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 791: 779: 776: 770: 766: 765: 764: 763: 760: 757: 750: 745: 742: 738: 737: 736: 735:A few notes: 729: 726: 720: 718:these things. 716: 715: 714: 711: 708: 704: 698: 693: 692: 691: 690: 686: 682: 676: 674: 665: 662: 659: 655: 649: 645: 641: 640: 639: 636: 629: 620: 614: 613: 612: 611: 608: 604: 595: 591: 587: 582: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 559: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 541: 532: 529: 522: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 500: 496: 492: 484: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 463: 462: 461: 457: 453: 446: 439: 432: 424: 420: 419: 418: 417: 413: 409: 404: 402: 398: 394: 389: 373: 370: 356: 352: 351: 350: 345: 341: 336: 332: 327: 323: 319: 317: 314: 309: 305: 304: 303: 300: 295: 291: 287: 286: 285: 280: 276: 271: 267: 263: 262: 259: 255: 251: 246: 245: 244: 243: 240: 225: 220: 216: 211: 207: 199: 198: 197: 194: 189: 185: 184: 183: 180: 175: 171: 170: 169: 164: 160: 155: 151: 150: 149: 144: 140: 135: 131: 130: 129: 128: 125: 120: 115: 108: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4784:Cite error: 4779: 4719: 4714: 4604: 4603: 4560: 4435: 4395: 4347: 4324: 4302: 4287: 4267: 4248: 4202:Alsofictivus 4201: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4156: 4152: 4042: 3998: 3926: 3907: 3877:Westlothiana 3875: 3775: 3772: 3740: 3736:no consensus 3735: 3732: 3701: 3678: 3555: 3364:missed any? 3356: 3337: 3287: 3269: 3249: 3189: 3152: 3148: 3145:Paleontology 3118: 3079: 3069: 2985: 2914: 2896: 2883: 2857:This version 2850: 2845: 2808: 2803:<ref: --> 2793:cite journal 2776:<ref: --> 2721: 2718: 2689: 2639: 2635: 2628: 2614:EncycloPetey 2607: 2603: 2584: 2558: 2536: 2519: 2490: 2448: 2427: 2388: 2347: 2291: 2245: 2221: 2204: 2198: 2194: 2172: 2129: 2111:Adenoviridae 2087: 2059: 2043: 2010: 1991: 1950: 1946: 1889: 1839: 1810: 1753: 1749: 1728: 1720: 1719: 1642: 1600: 1569: 1452: 1428: 1422: 1419:A. americana 1418: 1396: 1371: 1361: 1358:Bandel, 1998 1355: 1340:(Dall, 1927) 1333: 1331: 1315: 1314: 1302: 1193: 1177: 1144: 1118: 1091: 1080: 1071: 1051:Plastikspork 1021: 985: 972: 926: 920: 918: 902: 852: 819: 787: 754: 751:for details. 734: 699: 677: 673:User:Abyssal 670: 650: 643: 628:get regnum() 619:get regnum() 600: 405: 390: 387: 330: 325: 250:EncycloPetey 236: 111: 78: 43: 37: 4614:italictitle 4100:Torticaulis 3882:Conulariida 3853:you replied 3153:Paleobotany 3072:Torticaulis 2853:old version 2778:tags, just 2756:|authority= 1850:instead of 1846:which used 1272:Lepetellida 1162:Wonderful! 1020:browsing.-- 792:all about? 202:|name=Pitta 36:This is an 4726:Stemonitis 4682:Stemonitis 4590:Stemonitis 4533:Stemonitis 4481:Stemonitis 4439:ErikHaugen 4400:Stemonitis 4394:then that 4307:Stemonitis 4217:Stemonitis 4125:WP:TAXOBOX 4066:Stemonitis 3946:intended). 3857:Stemonitis 3849:just above 3810:Speciesbox 3780:Stemonitis 3745:Stemonitis 3290:an issue. 3256:MMartyniuk 2602:No, it is 2568:WP:Sources 2487:References 2471:Stemonitis 2428:infinitely 2398:Stemonitis 2377:, and not 2324:Stemonitis 2273:Stemonitis 2209:Stemonitis 2180:MMartyniuk 2107:Flavivirus 2056:Virus taxa 1816:Stemonitis 1721:A. proxima 1687:Stemonitis 1662:ErikHaugen 1610:Stemonitis 1535:Stemonitis 1401:Stemonitis 1364:Dall, 1927 1316:A. proxima 1292:Anatomidae 1258:Subclass: 1252:Gastropoda 586:Stemonitis 571:Stemonitis 549:Stemonitis 491:Stemonitis 466:MMartyniuk 452:Stemonitis 423:added text 335:ErikHaugen 270:ErikHaugen 210:ErikHaugen 154:ErikHaugen 134:ErikHaugen 98:Archive 14 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 4792:help page 3990:Just set 2869:authority 2260:this edit 2256:this edit 2195:long time 2175:Article 6 1701:|species= 1632:|species= 1310:Species: 1228:Kingdom: 1222:Eukaryota 784:/inactive 681:Kleopatra 408:Kleopatra 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 4659:Smith609 4499:Aardvark 4448:contribs 4351:Smith609 4328:Smith609 4303:de facto 4271:Smith609 4194:Fictivus 4190:Fictivus 4046:Smith609 4002:Smith609 3911:Smith609 3820:virusbox 3705:Smith609 3682:Smith609 3559:Smith609 3341:Smith609 3331:obvious! 3193:Smith609 3122:Smith609 3099:|parent= 2989:Smith609 2918:Smith609 2783:cite web 2658:taxobox? 2562:avoided. 2540:Smith609 2452:Smith609 2351:Smith609 2295:Smith609 2226:resolved 2133:Smith609 2091:Smith609 2078:virusbox 2048:resolved 1995:Smith609 1956:|parent= 1886:|parent= 1732:Smith609 1671:contribs 1646:Smith609 1573:Smith609 1347:Synonyms 1288:Family: 1242:Mollusca 1238:Phylum: 1232:Animalia 1218:Domain: 1182:resolved 1148:Smith609 907:resolved 856:Smith609 823:Smith609 703:Smith609 654:Smith609 543:Update: 401:Agnostid 395:(a FA), 366:IKIPEDIA 344:contribs 279:contribs 219:contribs 206:I did it 200:You add 163:contribs 143:contribs 4655:WP:DINO 4633:WP:DINO 4583:taxobox 4495:Cetacea 4388:taxobox 4288:serious 4198:Fitivus 4165:Taxobox 4157:whether 4082:Martin. 4062:orphans 3936:stable. 3927:However 3741:against 2731:taxobox 2572:WP:NPOV 2287:(etc). 1840:Anatoma 1605:|taxon= 1476:|taxon= 1451:one).-- 1424:Anatoma 1303:Anatoma 1298:Genus: 1268:Order: 1248:Class: 788:What's 545:Bryozoa 397:Bryozoa 362:OB THE 39:archive 4621:WP:TOL 4468:spider 4345:Martin 4322:Martin 4265:Martin 4121:WP:TOL 4040:Martin 3996:Martin 3905:Martin 3842:WT:TOL 3699:Martin 3676:Martin 3553:Martin 3335:Martin 3187:Martin 3116:Martin 3076:Nothia 2983:Martin 2912:Martin 2771:|refs= 2559:except 2534:Martin 2446:Martin 2433:Rkitko 2393:spider 2345:Martin 2289:Martin 2127:Martin 2085:Martin 2014:Obsidi 1989:Martin 1893:Obsidi 1726:Martin 1640:Martin 1567:Martin 1456:Obsidi 1432:Obsidi 1142:Martin 1122:Obsidi 1041:Ucucha 1025:Obsidi 1006:Ucucha 989:Obsidi 946:Google 930:Obsidi 850:Martin 817:Martin 756:Anomie 697:Martin 648:Martin 635:Ucucha 607:Rkitko 528:Rkitko 239:Ucucha 4788:WoRMS 4249:would 4170:with 3357:would 2269:false 2200:Taxon 1983:(and 1917:JoJan 1795:JoJan 1772:with 1508:JoJan 1378:JoJan 973:might 561:Yes, 438:birds 322:Pitta 290:Pitta 266:Pitta 114:Pitta 107:Pitta 16:< 4730:talk 4686:talk 4667:talk 4594:talk 4569:talk 4561:also 4537:talk 4497:and 4485:talk 4477:this 4473:this 4444:talk 4404:talk 4355:Talk 4332:Talk 4311:talk 4275:Talk 4221:talk 4186:etc. 4108:talk 4070:talk 4050:Talk 4006:Talk 3982:talk 3955:talk 3915:Talk 3890:talk 3880:and 3861:talk 3784:talk 3764:talk 3749:talk 3709:Talk 3686:Talk 3609:talk 3594:talk 3563:Talk 3345:Talk 3322:talk 3260:talk 3230:talk 3197:Talk 3126:Talk 3105:to " 3088:talk 2993:Talk 2965:talk 2939:talk 2922:Talk 2700:talk 2667:talk 2618:talk 2594:talk 2585:idea 2544:Talk 2501:talk 2475:talk 2456:Talk 2402:talk 2355:Talk 2328:talk 2299:Talk 2277:talk 2271:. -- 2258:and 2252:true 2213:talk 2184:talk 2137:Talk 2109:and 2105:See 2095:Talk 1999:Talk 1921:talk 1820:talk 1799:talk 1736:Talk 1691:talk 1667:talk 1650:Talk 1614:talk 1577:Talk 1539:talk 1512:talk 1405:talk 1382:talk 1152:Talk 1109:and 860:Talk 827:Talk 790:this 769:Bird 707:Talk 685:talk 658:Talk 590:talk 575:talk 553:talk 495:talk 470:talk 456:talk 412:talk 399:and 393:Bird 340:talk 312:talk 298:talk 275:talk 254:talk 215:talk 192:talk 178:talk 159:talk 139:talk 123:talk 4715:not 4153:how 4123:or 3994:. 3815:or 3471:-- 3185:. 3149:all 3101:at 3033:min 3028:Kev 2846:use 2754:by 2736:by 2604:not 2389:any 2205:not 1951:did 1947:and 1376:? 4794:). 4732:) 4688:) 4669:) 4617:}} 4611:{{ 4602:I 4596:) 4586:}} 4580:{{ 4571:) 4539:) 4487:) 4446:| 4406:) 4396:is 4391:}} 4385:{{ 4353:– 4330:– 4313:) 4273:– 4223:) 4213:}} 4207:{{ 4178:}} 4172:{{ 4168:}} 4162:{{ 4110:) 4093:}} 4087:{{ 4072:) 4048:– 4004:– 3984:) 3957:) 3913:– 3892:) 3863:) 3823:}} 3817:{{ 3813:}} 3807:{{ 3786:) 3766:) 3751:) 3707:– 3684:– 3634:}} 3628:{{ 3624:}} 3618:{{ 3611:) 3596:) 3561:– 3459:}} 3453:{{ 3448:}} 3442:{{ 3437:}} 3431:{{ 3426:}} 3420:{{ 3415:}} 3409:{{ 3404:}} 3398:{{ 3343:– 3324:) 3288:is 3262:) 3254:. 3232:) 3195:– 3124:– 3090:) 3082:. 2991:– 2967:) 2941:) 2920:– 2796:}} 2790:{{ 2786:}} 2780:{{ 2758:, 2752:}} 2746:{{ 2740:, 2734:}} 2728:{{ 2702:) 2669:) 2652:}} 2646:{{ 2636:is 2620:) 2596:) 2542:– 2503:) 2477:) 2454:– 2404:) 2396:-- 2385:}} 2379:{{ 2375:}} 2369:{{ 2353:– 2330:) 2297:– 2279:) 2229:}} 2223:{{ 2215:) 2186:) 2135:– 2113:. 2093:– 2081:}} 2075:{{ 2051:}} 2045:{{ 1997:– 1923:) 1822:) 1801:) 1756:. 1734:– 1693:) 1669:| 1648:– 1616:) 1608:-- 1575:– 1541:) 1533:-- 1514:) 1483:. 1427:-- 1407:) 1384:) 1185:}} 1179:{{ 1150:– 1055:―Œ 910:}} 904:{{ 858:– 825:– 705:– 687:) 656:– 646:. 631:}} 625:{{ 617:{{ 605:? 592:) 577:) 555:) 524:}} 518:{{ 497:) 486:}} 480:{{ 472:) 458:) 448:}} 442:{{ 434:}} 428:{{ 414:) 342:| 277:| 256:) 217:| 161:| 141:| 94:→ 64:← 4728:( 4684:( 4665:( 4592:( 4567:( 4535:( 4483:( 4450:) 4442:( 4402:( 4357:) 4349:( 4334:) 4326:( 4309:( 4277:) 4269:( 4219:( 4106:( 4068:( 4052:) 4044:( 4008:) 4000:( 3980:( 3953:( 3917:) 3909:( 3888:( 3859:( 3782:( 3762:( 3747:( 3711:) 3703:( 3688:) 3680:( 3626:- 3607:( 3592:( 3565:) 3557:( 3477:) 3347:) 3339:( 3320:( 3258:( 3228:( 3199:) 3191:( 3128:) 3120:( 3086:( 3037:§ 2995:) 2987:( 2963:( 2937:( 2924:) 2916:( 2879:. 2788:/ 2698:( 2665:( 2616:( 2592:( 2546:) 2538:( 2529:. 2499:( 2473:( 2458:) 2450:( 2400:( 2357:) 2349:( 2326:( 2301:) 2293:( 2275:( 2211:( 2182:( 2139:) 2131:( 2097:) 2089:( 2018:n 2016:♠ 2001:) 1993:( 1919:( 1897:n 1895:♠ 1818:( 1797:( 1776:. 1738:) 1730:( 1689:( 1673:) 1665:( 1652:) 1644:( 1612:( 1579:) 1571:( 1537:( 1510:( 1460:n 1458:♠ 1436:n 1434:♠ 1403:( 1380:( 1154:) 1146:( 1126:n 1124:♠ 1029:n 1027:♠ 993:n 991:♠ 934:n 932:♠ 862:) 854:( 829:) 821:( 759:⚔ 709:) 701:( 683:( 660:) 652:( 588:( 573:( 551:( 493:( 468:( 454:( 410:( 368:N 364:W 360:B 346:) 338:( 331:I 326:I 281:) 273:( 252:( 221:) 213:( 165:) 157:( 145:) 137:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index