Template talk:Taxobox#Subterclass adding request

{{edit template-protected|Template:Taxobox|answered=yes}}

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

: With the different versions it might not be appropriate to replace the old graphics with new if the assessments in the taxoboxes use the old system. I'll have a look at the usage and see if this is an issue before updating the images.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:Just to note that the icons and other information for status codes are set in Template:Taxobox/species. I think that just as there are versions of IUCN, e.g. IUCN3.1, there need to be versions of NZTCS, e.g. NZTCS2022. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:: In practice, that might be hard to do retrospectively. There are around 1300 uses of {{para|status_system(2)|NZTCS}} and most are unreferenced. Many already have assessments under the new version. However, the changes are mainly cosmetic, using a more varied colour range for the categories. One category (Recovering) has been replaced (with Nationally Increading). That can continue to use the graphic for the old version. Not ideal but if we use the new graphics the other categories will just be in a different colour, so there shouldn't be any confusion. The alternative requires all the existing uses to be reevaluated to check the version used.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Do you happen to know how I might be able to retrieve a list of all the articles which presently have 'R' as their status? I don't think I would have a problem going through and updating every instance of this while properly referencing it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22NZ+TCS%22+insource%3A%2Fsystem+*%3D+*NZTCS%2F++insource%3A%2Fstatus2%3F+*%3D+*R%5B%5EA-Z%5D%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=2t971tf4zqhmxbn4ulr8ah0oc this search] there were only three articles on species with Recovering status. Two had been updated to NI and the third reclassified as Relict. I've edited the articles to the new statuses.

:::: Unlike the IUCN, which makes new assessments piecemeal, the NZTCS publishes a report covering all species every four to five years, so I don't see a need for retaining the old systems. I've added the NI status to {{tl|Taxobox/species}} to allow the changes above and propose that we change the images on the other categories.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::One potential hiccup I'll point out: I think I've created the diagram "technically" incorrectly, because apparently, nobody actually sticks to the 2022 guidelines (and thus neither did I). For instance, if you take a report at report 43 (vascular plants 2023), they use the new system to include Nationally Increasing, but then they fall back to the Townsend 2008 system to include one species as 'Recovering'. Report 40 (indigeneous marine inverts 2021) doesn't have any which are Nationally Increasing, Relict or Recovering. Report 41 has Nationally Increasing but then uses Declining, Relict, and Naturally Uncommon. Report 42 (indigenous terrestrial gastropods 2022) acknowledges (but doesn't need to use) Nationally Increasing but then uses Declining, Relict, and Naturally Uncommon.

:::::Meanwhile, though, if you take a look at the 2022 guidelines, Figure 2 on page 11 is extremely clear that the 'At Risk' section is composed of 'Declining, Uncommon, Recovering' in order of most concern to least. Something I'm also realizing is that I should've put 'Not Threatened' on the same diagram as the others, because they all fall under 'Assessed'. I didn't because I feared having to fit the word 'Threatened', but I see that the diagram for COSEWIC gets around this by abbreviating it to 'Threaten.' I'll at least do that before you add these new ones. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::I've made the changes. I've kept the categories as-is even though they contradict the 2022 manual, because otherwise, we'd end up with a case where we technically comply with the rules but none of the reports do, thus making our diagram functionally useless. However, I've added 'Not Threatened' to it, because it's clear that (unlike Data Deficient) it's on the same axis as the others. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure if this is a new issue, but I only noticed it yesterday.

On my phone, if I look at an article in desktop mode (with phone in portrait) the taxobox appears above the text on the left, with around half a screen width of white to the right. The taxobox also clips the images and text, with a scrollbar at the bottom. Examples for Felidae and Insect. This can be duplicated on a regular computer by reducing the width of the display window. In mobile mode the taxobox is full screen below the first paragraph as expected.

The width of the taxoboxes is set at 200px width in the outer HTML table tag of the taxobox (see {{tl|taxobox/core}}). However, when images are wider, this is overridden and the taxobox is wider to accommodate the images. This works fine until the taxobox floats above the text at narrower screen sizes, when the taxobox narrows, despite there been available space (which is used in mobile view).

If the taxobox is going to float above the text, it makes no sense to have it narrow with wasted space to the right. While I'm not sure if this is new, there is a discussion at the Village Pump on a recent change affecting image sizes in infoboxes (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Tech_News:_2025-16 and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Why_are_infobox_image_sizes_huge_now?. While it's not obvious why the change is related, it seems a coincidence.

Either way, this is something that should be fixed. Many people access Wikipedia from phones and with the high resolutions now available desktop view has advantages.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

: What I have found out so far.

:* The taxoboxes use CSS class infobox

:* There is a @media (min-width:640px) block that floats the elements with .infobox to the right and sets a width of 22em. This is why the taxoboxes float right.

:* So when the screen is narrowed below 640px the floating right stops and the taxobox displays above the text.

:* In addition, there is a @media (max-width:640px) block that sets the width to 100%.

:* However, taxoboxes override the widths set by class infobox.

::: The HTML table declaration in {{tl|taxobox/core}} sets a width of 200px.

::: For automated taxoboxes, the header for the scientific classification has min-width:15em, which prevents the pencil form overlapping the text.

::: Therefore manual taxoboxes and automated taxoboxes have minimum widths of 200px and 15em respectively.

:* However, when there is an image that is wider than those widths, the image ends up setting the width of the taxobox. At least it doesn't when the screen width is above 640px.

:* The strange behaviour is that when the width drops below 640px, the image no longer sets the width and the taxobox values do. This results in the clipping of the images and the scroll bar below. I've no idea why this happens.

: I think the simplest solution is to remove the width from the taxobox table and rely on the infobox defaults. When the screen is above 640px the width will be 22em, which is slightly wider than current taxoboxes with no image. In most cases the image will still determine the width. Below 640px, the width is set to 100%, but this behaves strangely. Only the border is is 100% and the content is narrower. This behaviour is seen in all infoboxes that use the default infobox class.

: This is difficult to set up and test in the sandbox. The testcases have the taxoboxes in tables for comparison so the floating and changes with screen size don't apply. I'll continue with some tests using the edit preview.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:: The answer to the skinny clipped taxobox can be solved by adding the following code to Template:taxobox/core/styles.css:

::* @media (max-width:640px) { .infobox width:100% !important; }}

:: This will make the taxobox full width when the screen is narrow and prevent the clipping of the taxobox. The outer border is full width, but for some reason the rows and cell content isn't. I've yet to work out why, but this is true for all infoboxes. This can be solved by adding the following to the max-width media block

::*.infobox th { width:50% !important; } All the taxobox headers span two columns so that brings the content to full width.

:: With both changes the content of all skins will match that using the Minerva mobile skin, which won't be affected. I could tweak the code to explicitly exclude that skin as a precaution for something unexpected. The only people using the old skins on ancient computers or mobiles in desktop view would potentially see any change. I still want to further test the second part, but propose adding the first soon. I also think we should remove the 200px default width and let taxoboxes follow the infobox class defaults.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I've implemented the fix with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxobox/core/styles.css&diff=prev&oldid=1287766962 this edit] at {{tl|taxobox/core/styles.css}} There should only be a change for those using screens below 640px in non-mobile views. In practice this means only those using a mobile in desktop view. {{ping|Peter coxhead|plantdrew}} you both view a lot of taxoboxes so if you see something unanticipated, revert the change and mention it here.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

:They are certainly composed of "simple geometric shapes", and the ordering of the categories is basic information. Whether the combination is sufficiently complex to be copyrightable I'm not competent to say. No-one has ever complained, so I would leave well alone. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

: Who created the images? These aren't the IUCN graphics, but graphical representation of the IUCN status categories. The uses in each taxobox are accompanied by a link to the IUCN_Red_List article and a link to the species assessment on the IUCN website. Surely this sufficient attribution for the concept.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Taxobox colour scheme|answered=yes}}

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

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} I have already changed this in {{tl|Taxobox colour scheme}}, then came back to mark it completed and ran into an edit conflict. So sorry, editor {{u|Jonesey95}}. All the other entries are uppercased; incertae sedis was the only entry that wasn't. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::The others appear to be proper nouns, capitalized in all cases, while "incertae sedis" is always shown in lower case, AFAICT. That's why I marked the request as "please establish consensus". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I didn't consider bacteria, fungi, nor viruses to be proper nouns, so for me it was consistency of first-letter-case that was most important. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)