Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the automated taxobox system as a whole – not just one page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 41.5 days

This talk page can be used to discuss issues with the automated taxobox system that are common to the entire system, not just one of its templates. Discussions of this nature prior to 2017 can be found at Template talk:Automatic taxobox

Those familiar with the system prior to mid-2016 are advised to read Notes for "old hands".

Template/Taxonomy for something about which very little is known?

I've recently been updating things to the automated system, and today I dealt with Mawsonites. It's a genus defined by a fossil from hundreds of millions of years ago, and apparently there's not even a remote consensus about what it is (jellyfish? trace fossil? microbial colony? etc. etc. etc.). There was no {{taxonomy}} template for it, so I created Template:Taxonomy/Mawsonites, but ran into a couple things that I'm not sure I did correctly, and don't know how to "really" handle.

1. The existing {{taxobox}} listed it as in Animalia, then incertae sedis from there down to the genus itself. I put the existing "Animalia/incertae sedis" claim in the new taxonomy template. However, some of the theorized possibilities listed in the main article for the genus are not actually animals. Should its parent perhaps be set to {{Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Life}} instead? I should note here that some of the theorized possibilities aren't even organisms, e.g. "mud volcano or other sedimentary structure", but the article reads like those theories are now thought to be very unlikely.

2. I wasn't sure what to do about the taxonomy template's "extinct" field. I guess at least the species is almost certainly extinct, since we apparently haven't kept finding these things, but the genus? Again, I'd guess extinct, but... what if it's just some jellyfish (I know that's not a genus, but that doesn't mean that its genus would necessarily be extinct)? Or even some weird mark left by a jellyfish? But as far as I can see from the documentation, "extinct" is just yes/no; I'm not sure if it's appropriate or even possible to instead set it to "probably" or "unknown" or whatever.

For what it's worth, I'm thinking "Incertae sedis/Life" and "extinct=yes", but instead of making it that way, I decided to just keep things as close as possible to the way they were in the pre-automated article, and raise my questions here. - Rwv37 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwv37:, "Animalia/incertae sedis" seems appropriate. The Paleobiology Database lists the parent as Metazoa (i.e. Animalia) citing a 2004 paper. The 2004 paper actually discusses Mawsonites in the context of "medusoids". "Medusoids" does appear in quotation marks in the paper, suggesting that the authors are hedging their bets a bit; i.e., they are discussing fossils that have been classified as medusoids, but aren't definitively taking a position on whether the fossils mentioned are or are not actually medusoids. The source currently in the article for the statement "jellyfish (although this is considered unlikely)" actually says "not considered by Glaessner (1979) to be undoubtedly a jellyfish", which is not at all the same thing as "considered unlikely to be a jellyfish".

Based on what I've seen I think you could set the parent template to be Template:Taxonomy/Scyphozoa/? (questionably a jellyfish), but "Animalia/incertae sedis" works as well. The non-animal hypotheses for Mawsonites don't seem to be well supported.

For taxa known from fossils, you can pretty safely set "extinct=yes". If a genus is known from fossils as well as extant species a quick check on a search engine should turn up sources discussing the extant species. The absence of a † in a manual taxobox shouldn't be taken to indicate that extinct status is uncertain for a taxon that the article describes as being known from fossils. Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 9 September 2024

This edit request to Module:Automated taxobox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, please apply this fix to the module in production. Od1n (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority date in square brackets?

I just updated Corcobara (a monotypic genus of moths) to use {{Automatic taxobox}} instead of {{Taxobox}}, and there's a bit that I'm not sure if I did right:

In the preexisting Taxobox, the authorities in the "Genus" and "Species" sections were both given as "Moore, 1882", but the one in the "Synonyms" section was given as "Moore, [1885]". I don't know what the square brackets mean there, so I went in search of information about it. I found something about having square brackets around the authority name, but nothing about having them around the date. So, I guessed that maybe it was just a stylistic choice by some previous Wikipedian, and removed them, leaving just "Moore, 1885".

Was this correct of me, or should it have the square brackets around the date? If the latter, what do they indicate? Thanks. - Rwv37 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Square brackets around a date in a taxonomic authority citation, like "Moore, [1885]" typically indicates that the actual date of publication is different from the date printed on the publication itself. So "Moore, 1885" and "Moore, [1885]" convey different information. Not sure what the Wikipedia standard is for instances like these ... Esculenta (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwv37: for monotypic genera, you should use {{Speciesbox}}, not {{Automatic taxobox}}. That aside, there is something funky going on with the dates for this moth.

The first source in the article (Hewitson & Moore) has a title page with a publication date of 1879, and on page 186 the genus Corcobara and the species C. angulipennis are being presented as newly described. Hewitson & Moore is a 3 part publication; the version linked from the Corocbara at archive.org gives the publication date as 1879-1888. 1882 appears on page 340 (apparently the title page for the last? part).

GBIF (and Lepindex) give "Moore, 1894" as the authority for the species angulipennis, and GBIF gives the authority for Corcobara as "Moore, 1882". So something is probably wrong there. Lepindex does have "Moore, [1885]" as the authority for Corcobara thwaitesi, while treating it as a junior synonym of C. angulipennis (which is obviously an error in some way at LepIndex).

I'm not at all sure where the 1882 (instead of 1879) date comes from, but I'm pretty sure the 1894 date can not be correct, and given the uncertainties around the date of one of Moore's publications I'm not surprised there may be uncertain about another one of them (the one where C. thwaitesi) was desribed). Plantdrew (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta, thanks, but: Which is which? That is, does [1885] mean "published in 1885", or "publication itself says 1885"? - Rwv37 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means the work was actually published in 1885, but the date printed on the publication is different (often earlier). Esculenta (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the archive.org version Parts II and III are dated Nov. 28, 1881 and Sept. 5, 1887 (see bottom of pages 89 and 199). Assuming those are manuscript dates, this is consistent with the titles pages dated 1882 and 1888 on pages 340 and 342. When Part II was actually published is another matter. What is the crucial date, when the work is printed or when it is distributed? — Jts1882 | talk 06:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ICNafp names, it's definitely the date it was distributed. For printed matter, the Code says "Art. 29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries." The printed date is often earlier, particularly for older works bound in multiple parts. Dyanega is better able to comment on ICZN names. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the ICZN says is not exactly what people typically do. You're supposed to give the date specified within a work in brackets, but the actual date outside of the brackets: "Examples. Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ("1969"), or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ["1969"], or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 (imprint 1969), or Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 (not 1969), was established in a work which, although published in 1970, carried an imprint date of 1969; Anomalopus truncatus (Peters, 1876 ["1877"]) was established in a different genus from Anomalopus in a work which, although published in 1876, carried an imprint date of 1877." If that were the example being followed, a name saying "Moore, [1885]" would imply that the publication says 1885, but there is reason to believe it is some other, unspecified year. I think that that's not what is happening here, so it has nothing to do with what the Code recommends. As for determining what the actual date is in the first place, the ICZN is a little complicated, but basically it's "the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work", meaning multiple Code-compliant copies that have been distributed, similar to the ICNafp. Dyanega (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC clade

So the UTC clade is a clade of algae but there’s no taxonomy? Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. The UTC clade is a group within Chlorophyta comprising Ulvophyceae, Trebouxiophyceae and Chlorophyceae. The taxonomy is discussed in the various articles. Is there somewhere where it is mentioned without explanation? — Jts1882 | talk 06:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]