Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/family taxobox example
It will be more convenient for us as editors to always link the genera. Kingturtle 18:49 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
On a separate note, a personal interest to me is what the Latin binomial nomenclature translate to and why the term was chosen. But I am having a difficult time deciding where to place such information.
For example, the Red-throated Diver species name is stellata', meaning starred, in reference to the white speckling on its back in winter. But where do I write that in the article? It is too much information to put in the taxobox. So I tried putting it in the first sentence, but then I had to include the binomial nomenclature in the sentence, which interferes with the taxobox. I solved it with a dagger. I'm not attached to it. If you have a better idea, please let me know. Kingturtle 02:54 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree that it shouldn't go in the taxobox. I usually repeat the binomial name in the first sentence anyway, so I tend to put any derivation, if I put one, near the front of the article. I can see that there is some repetition of information that way, so it may not be ideal. Although using a dagger is not in itself a problem, I can foresee a potential situation where a taxobox might have several daggers to a derivation, a reference and other part-families, which would like like a surgeon's tray.
- I think it also depends on the nature of the derivation. Goose inherited a lenghthy derivation going back through Indo-European languages, so I moved it back in the article.jimfbleak
If I can summarise:
- KT is saying that we ought to include the derivation
- Jim is saying that this can be a problem in the already crowded taxoboxes
I think you are both right. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I've been thinking about adding a more-or-less standardised section, probably to the bottom of each page, that includes the information that we are pretty much always going to want in every entry. Stuff like derivation of the name for sure, and probably several other things. Perhaps range, measurements, conservation status, call (?), stuff like that.
- It could be in table form (which would impose several constraints, see below) or more free form, maybe list style.
- It would be important not to include everything in it!
- We need to leave room for something to be covered in the text.
- Some things just don't squeeze down into a convenient table sort of presentation. For these, you need room to write at as much length as it takes to do the subject justice.
- If it is to be in table form, then we need to think about layout considerations.
- What happens if the taxobox is really long?
- What happens if there really isn't much to say about this taxon and we esentially have covered the whole lot in the taxobox and the detailbox?
In summary, not an easy task to get something like this happening, and yet it could be of real value. Tannin 12:49 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Given the problems we've had with taxoboxes, I'm not keen on more/extended tables. The element tables like zinc are so crammed with data as to be almost unreadable, although there is logic for absolutely standard chemical info.
- There is also logic in the taxobox, to show the biological links, but I don't think that it should be a collection of facts, especially as, say, the range for eg barn owl would fill a box on its own. I would rather see a more standardised order, especially at the species level, with biological info first. A possible order, which in practice we largely follow anyway, might be
- relationships including family and sidewards links
- broad characteristics
- habitat/range/migration
- identification comments
- nesting habits/eggs
- songs and calls
- miscellaneous
- derivation (I like KT's footnote style for this non-biological info)
On an unrelated matter, unlike KT, I never thought to update my user page with new articles as I went along, and its too difficult to retrace now. I've tried to make sure family articles link to list of birds, and I've putin more links on other pages where they seem to help. jimfbleak