This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Showing script for any necessary debugging by User:Darklama. It should allow using | genus = for hybrids or other plants where species is unknown, but will ignore genus if species is entered.
User:Thumperward altered the existing cultivar infobox (top) to the sandbox version (below). I thought what he had done broke the infobox. The change was startling and was not discussed. I have reverted the changes and we can discuss the proposed updates here. Rkitko(talk) 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Initial impressions of the sandbox version lead to 2 criticisms from my point of view:
1) The cultivar name at the top is now outside the box
2) The wording for 'Hybrid parentage' now runs across 2 lines, which may confuse some readers into thinking there are 2 sections of 'Hybrid' and 'parentage'. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The former was a deliberate change to use an HTML <caption> for the title for accessibility reasons. The latter can easily be fixed by preventing the line from wrapping. I'd be happy to make that change in the sandbox if you're like. As for advantages that the new code gives:
The code is much more readable and maintainable, and will automatically pick up on changes made to the main {{infobox}} template in future.
The output is more compact, makes better user of horizontal space, and doesn't have large distracting bands of colour across it.
The layout is more accessible, including various semantic improvements which help automated readers to figure out the structure of the data.
I'm not keen on the deployment of the current sandbox layout insofar as it introduces a lack of continuity in the look of plant infoboxes, i.e. plant taxoboxes and plant cultivar infoboxes.Melburnian (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{taxobox}} is as it is for historical reasons: its layout can't readily be fixed, while this one can. And while it means inconsistency with {{taxobox}}, {{infobox}} is far more commonly used, and it means increased consistency with the likes of company infoboxes and such which may also appear on the same articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first point (above) regarding the title being outside the box has not been satisfactorily addressed (in my view) by User:Thumperward's replies. I feel it is imperative from a presentational point of view to keep all information within the box delineations. Surely the whole point of infoboxes etc. is their presentational aspect; it cannot be right to compromise this just in the interest of ease of use by editors. As regards my second point, I would be interested to see a sandbox version where the line is prevented from wrapping, although my suspicion is that this will lead to an excessively wide box. As a point of agreement with User:Thumperward, I concur that the large bands of colour spanning the present version of the box are somewhat lacking in presentational elegance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it's "imperative from a presentational point of view" to have the title in the box (I'd argue the opposite, in fact, and the general infobox split is about 50-50 for having titles inside or outside the box bounds at present), but I've cooked up a new example at template:infobox cultivar/sandbox2 which puts some compromises into place:
The fact that I hadn't noticed that the title is outside the box in about 50% of infoboxes perhaps indicates that in practice the position of the title doesn't matter that much, although under this scrutiny I find that I do very much prefer to have the infobox title within the box bounds, and I hence find the Sandbox2 version acceptable from this point of view. One other amendment which I would suggest is that the labelling of the image is in a different font (or different-sized characters) to the text beneath (as is the case in the original version) - personally I think this makes the box easier to read at a glance, as the text referring to the image is discernibly different. If such an amendment is possible and if the resulting template doesn't compromise the technical advantages which have been outlined and argued for above, I think I could find that to be an improvement on the original version. However I am only one voice and I think the opinions of others should also be expressed before a decision is made on this issue. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for exploring a compromise solution. Ideally, I would prefer to retain some further key visual plant taxobox characteristics (as seen in the original infobox cultivar) including the font size within the green top bar and the picture caption (i.e. both reduced) and reducing the white space on either side of the photo (and matching the green bar width with the photo width).--Melburnian (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason for the whitespace by the photo is that with the label not wrapping the box is stretched beyond its usual bounds. As for the image caption, shrinking it below 88% font size simply makes it more difficult to read: there is no confusion as to whether it is a caption or a data point due to its location and centering, so I'd prefer if it were kept at the default size. I suppose the title font size could be reduced, but again that seems to compromise on the readability of the template for rather minor aesthetic parity with a template which doesn't represent best practices as regards infobox layout these days. But I'm happy to wait for further input. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My preferences are as follows:
1) Title font size - find Sandbox2 version aesthetically acceptable, but query if this reduces
available space for long titles?
2) Image caption - prefer font size reduced from Sandbox2 version, as a reduced font size helps attach it to the image above, rather than to the text beneath
3) Width of image/width of text/width of title green bar - prefer if they match
Rather than reducing the font size of the caption (which again makes it harder to read), I've added a new header to split the image and the rest of the data. If there are no further objections I'll deploy this code: it results in nearly a 30% reduction in code size, significantly increased parity with the previlaing infobox style, while retaining enough of the style characteristics to tie it to {{taxobox}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the new header acceptable. I have also decided that, seeing as the box width is slightly increased, the increased size of the title font is also acceptable (to me). However my other question remains, namely that I think that if the non-text elements of the box (ie the colour bars and the image) can all have the same width, I think that would be more elegant. If that can be addressed without huge expansion to the code, that would be my preferential outcome. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not artificially prevented from having the same width as the headers: it just happens to be that this image is less wide than the infobox. Adding an image_width which is slightly larger than the default image thumbnail size (for instance, 250px) fixes this as follows:
However, that's an editorial decision for individual articles to make, as obviously images differ. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that this layout is OK. I was initially concerned that the box seemed to have increased in size again, but by messing around with the image width that can be sorted out, or at least it can be in this instance, eg:
I'd just deploy the code and see if any objections arise, seeing as other contributors to this particular discussion seem to have fallen away. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Been busy. I think the most recent version is acceptable, though I would highly suggest trying out all of the available parameters to see how they look. Rkitko(talk) 12:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok, subject to Rkitko's comment re other parameters. Melburnian (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox cultivar
|name = Guernsey elm
|
Consider the first cultivar box displayed here, produced by specifying |genus=''Ulmus''|species=''minor'', i.e. parameters more or less as they would be used in a taxobox. The display is wrong; the species is U. minor not minor. (Actually in a taxobox the italics would be automatic, so the parameters would be |genus=Ulmus|species=minor.)
The parameters need to be given as |genus=''Ulmus''|species=''U. minor''.
I'm working on extending the template to allow an infraspecific name, so that it could handle something like the hypothetical Ulmus minor subsp. minor 'Smith's Upright'. Consistency with the existing version would require the user to input |subspecies=''U. m.'' subsp. ''minor''. I would really prefer to alter the template to behave as the taxobox templates do, i.e. automatically provide the italics and the first part of species and infraspecies names, or if this would produce too many existing uses to be fixed, to create a version under a different name that behaves like a taxobox.
Comments, please.
Thank you Peter for working on this. I don't think that there would be enough instances needing fixing for your suggested changes to be much of a problem; many of the 1600+ transclusions currently do not use the genus or species parameters, and some specify e.g., species = Brassica oleracea. So in your example, I think it is desirable to link to Ulmus minor, and to Ulmus minor subsp. minor, but generating these names and links from simple parameters would be quite a sophisticated trick in template design. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too difficult to do; in fact right now there's a version at Template:Infobox cultivar/sandbox that handles generating the 'combination' names.
{{Infobox cultivar/sandbox |name=Guernsey elm |genus = Ulmus |species = minor |subspecies=minor |cultivar = 'Sarniensis'}} generates the infobox opposite. (I haven't yet fixed the automatic insertion of single quotes around the cultivar name. The genus and species should also be wikilinked automatically. If the genus name, specific epithet and infraspecific epithet are already marked as in italics, this version still works.)
But accepting the sandbox version would mean that |species=Ulmus minor would produce the wrong output.
@Rkitko: you've worked extensively on the taxobox templates; I'd welcome your views. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is much improved, thanks Peter. I think we can handle single cultivars quite well, now, much better than before. I'll add some comments about the all-too-common situation of alternative taxonomies below. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative taxonomies, particularly cultivar groups[edit]
Inspired by Peter Coxhead's improvements described in the previous section, I had a look at Begonia × tuberhybrida which, in spite of being a species name, currently has a cultivar infobox. The species name is not accepted by some authors who prefer to call it a cultivar group, either the Tuberhybrida Group or the Tuberosa Group. The botanical databases avoid the issue entirely, and it seems that gardening publications prefer to either ignore the species information or make a mess of it. I wonder if anyone has suggestions about how we should handle that sort of situation here, where there are alternative taxonomies, one governed by the ICNCP and one purely related to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). WP:PLANTS suggests that alternative taxonomies should be discussed in the text of the page (and I think that works quite well in ICN situations such as when some authors use the species rank and others use a variety for the same group of plants). This situation, however, doesn't fit well in either a taxobox or a cultivar box. If we put both a taxobox and a cultivar box on the same page, I think what is shown to the right is the closest we can achieve to explaining the situation with the current templates. Short of suggesting that an "alternative ICNCP taxonomy" parameter be created for the taxobox templates, I don't know what to suggest about neatly handing such cases. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long response, but this is a really big problem, and it's easier to set out the issues than come up with solutions.
The ICNCP is not (yet) well-supported in the literature, and is often used incorrectly when it is supported.
As in the example above, older sources use ICN names for complex hybrids of horticultural and agricultural origin. Names dating back to Linnaeus have turned out to be based on cultivars or groups of cultivars. It seems that such names are slowly being abandoned, but "slowly" is the operative word here, and sometimes ICN names have been replaced by systems not based on the ICNCP (e.g. cultivated Musa have a nomenclature system based on a hierarchy of genome groups containing cultivar groups, a system invented pre-ICNCP and not conforming to it since ICNCP Groups aren't hierarchical).
The correct names of cultivar groups and cultivars are determined by the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) which covers the genus. However, they are not obliged to make their registers freely available, and in the case of very important groups, don't. Thus cultivated roses are covered by the American Rose Society; although the most recent registrations are online the main register is not – it has to be bought as a paper copy.
Although alternative classifications can be discussed in the text of an article, there's only one article title, so at least here a single option has to be selected and the others redirected to it. We have generally tried to avoid multiple taxoboxes, so again a choice is usually needed.
In specific cases, I've often been guided by TPL (though note that it extracts information incorrectly from Tropicos, so where this is the underlying database it needs to be checked directly). I've left a note at Talk:Begonia × tuberhybrida (which seems more appropriate) on this specific case. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, as a former ICRA Registrar, I got the sense that the common errors in use of the ICNCP weren't really about a non-acceptance of it as the authority, but were more about the percentage of authors using it being gardeners instead of scientists. They're doing the best they can. Errors-in-use and use of old systems, while common, are being remedied; it just takes time. I really haven't seen much disagreement with it being a complete authority for cultivar nomenclature.
I'm not sure I know what you mean about ICNCP Groups being 'non-conforming' just because they're hierarchical. All it takes for a set of Groups to be hierarchical is to allow a taxon to be part of more than one group (specifically allowed per ICNCP Art. 3.4), and the only restriction on this overlap is that it be for a "practical purpose". They left it wide open for the ICRA's to use in the way that was most beneficial for each of them. Hierarchy is certainly a practical purpose and is currently being used by notable ICRA's as you mentioned. Regarding some ICNCP registers not being freely available (mine always were), it's true, but not really different than plants under the ICN. They still have to be correctly and publicly published, but that doesn't mean you won't have to pay to get access it. I do agree on the taxobox/cultivar-box issue, we just have to pick one based on the best info we have regarding common & current acceptance, using both would be contradictory. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your useful comments; good to know that someone actually has experience of being involved with the ICNCP.
Re "hierarchical": it's not that Groups can't be hierarchical, it's that they don't have to be. Yes, a taxon can be a member of more than one Group, but for a hierarchy these Groups must themselves be hierarchically arranged (i.e. have only one taxon as a parent in the hierarchy). Thus banana cultivars are described by many banana specialists as belonging to groups within which there are subgroups, e.g. Musa 'Karat Pwehu' belongs to the Karat subgroup of the Fe'i group. ICNCP terminology doesn't allow "subgroup"; thus you'd have to call it either Musa (Fe'i Group) 'Karat Pwehu' or Musa (Karat Group) 'Karat Pwehu', but this loses very important information. The cultivar taxobox ought to run Musa → Fe'i Group → Karat Subgroup → 'Karat Pwehu', but this isn't in accord with the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no formal mention of "Subgroup" in the cultivated code, but subgroups work just fine within the ICNCP system if the ICRA finds hierarchy useful. Where your taxobox might say Musa → Fe'i Group → Karat Subgroup → 'Karat Pwehu', just drop the "Sub" and it works fine. If it's a real Group, we'll know from their definition that all of the Karat Group are a subordinate portion of the Fe'i Group, it's not necessary to use the "Sub".
You were worried about loosing vital information. In your example of choosing between either Musa (Fe'i Group) 'Karat Pwehu' or Musa (Karat Group) 'Karat Pwehu', the second option includes all the info you need in a hierarchical system, since the Karat Group are always strictly a subset of the Fe'i Group. Just like in the botanical code we don't include the kingdom, phylum, class, and order with every epithet. Yes that excludes information, but we can simply look up the definition of the genus to find the family, etc. So too, we can look up the definition of the Karat Group to find that it is a part of the Fe'i Group. It might be helpful in this case not to use vague language such as "isn't in accord with the ICNCP". Since the framers left very wide latitude for the ICRA's to set up the Groups however they are needed, it might be more useful to say something like 'prohibited by the ICNCP', and also cite the portion of the Code you are referring to.--Tom Hulse (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom Hulse: There are two issues with this. (1) It does lose information because we don't immediately know that the Karat subgroup is a subgroup of something else; compare this with subspecies vs. species. (2) It's not in accordance with the most reliable sources for cultivated banana taxonomy which do explicitly use subgroups (see here). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
