Template talk:taxoninfl

RFD discussion: September 2013–March 2014
This template is now being put in place of />. I don't know why. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does all and only what currently seems needed for taxononomic names.
 * It is not subject to the font-display problem that besets.
 * It provides a basis for subsequent specializations.
 * --DCDuring TALK 15:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * taxoninfl is now placed as a headword-line template. It is preferable to keep the number of headword-line template limited, if only to ease the work of Wiktionary reusers. From what I can see, taxoninfl does not do anything that "mul-proper noun" cannot do. If "mul-proper noun" has some font problems, these should be fixed in the template; you don't go placing a new template name across the wiki only because you do not have the consensus to change an existing template. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The intent is to develop the ability of the template to accommodate formatting of subspecific taxa, which have mixed italic/non-italic formatting without overburdening our already overstressed technical resources who, when they get around to it, overgeneralize the problem.
 * You are the sole objector. When I have been the sole voice crying out in the wilderness, I did not try to impose my will, nor did I find others who would let me block someone's efforts. Perhaps you will be more fortunate or skillful. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kept. — Keφr 17:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Taxon formatting
There are three main types of taxonomic name formatting, each governed by a different governing body, each of which has a significant following, so attestation is almost guaranteed. The three bodies at ("ICZN") (animals, including bacteria),  ("ICN", formerly "ICBN"), and  ("ICTV") (viruses). There may be more subtle differences, some historical in practice at the level of such groupings as insects, fungi, algae, and bacteria. In addition, taxonomic names with a translingual scope of usage predate the acceptance of the authority of these bodies and even before the Linnean system. Such names follow no documented system and are arguably simply scientific New Latin or Medieval Latin.

The ICTV, which now recognizes fewer than 3,000 names, at the level of species or higher, diverges from the others in that it does not follow the Linnaean system of binomens, trinomens, etc. All taxonomic names are italicized, except the kingdom Virus (presumably accommodating the practice for higher-level names governed by the other authorities).

Both the ICN and the ICBN do not italicize taxonomic names above the level of genus and do have italics at all taxonomic names at or below that level. ICN allows taxonomic names that include certain non-italicized words into taxonomic names, whereas ICZN does not. The common non-italicized words are subspecies (subsp.), variety (var.), form (f.), which appear in abbreviated forms. Also sometimes sectio (sect.), subsectio (subsect.), and subgenus (subg.).

Can we use head template to process gender
Is it possible to pass the gender parameter, g=..., to the template, so it can add the appropriate hover/help text?

The way this template currently adds the gender is usually ok, e.g.:

Rhamnus cathartica f

But when the gender is '?', it just looks confusing to see in an entry:

Grus canadensis ?

I saw this and wondered for a while why there was a question mark. A question mark can also represent a taxon that is not yet accepted. I only realised it was a placeholder for gender when I dug down to the template level.

I looked at fixing this myself, but... it's difficult. This template is already getting complex enough that it might warrant converting it to Lua. Pengo (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed this problem myself, and fixed it to use . I found that a couple entries had nonstandard genders, which I fixed, and that no entries had, so I removed it from the documentation, as  cannot handle that anyway. If we want to distinguish different kinds of indeterminate gender, that might be okay, but in practice I think it's better simply to omit gender where we cannot ascertain it, and treat those taxa as genderless. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now converted the template to use . —CodeCat 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, shit. I seem to have misused TemplateTiger, because there are a bunch of module errors caused now by bad genders. I really should fix them but I don't want to put the time into it now, so unless you want to deal with it, I'm going to revert us or or special-case it m?, g?, and n? as valid genders for this template only. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)