Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system

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".

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Jts1882: Atlas Þə Biologist may have been commenting before I created Template:Taxonomy/UTC clade, when the taxobox in the article didn't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense, although I'm puzzled by the timeline. I'm sure I checked the UTC clade article and find it hard to believe I missed the taxobox error.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; I didn't "create" the taxonomy template as I wrote above, I corrected the version that Atlas Þə Biologist had created that didn't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Pyrosome taxonomy

In English Wikipedia they don’t do the taxonomy right.

1. There are 3 genera in the Pyrosomatidae (pyrosoma, pyrostremma and pyrosomella)
2. there is also 2 subfamily (Pyrosomatinae (animal) and Pyrostremmatinae)

so we need to fix the taxonomy. Atlas Þə Biologist (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is more usefully raised at the Pyrosome article, so I've posted at Talk:Pyrosome#Family is not monotypic. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this the largest template category on Wikipedia?

It looks like there are over 119,600 pages under the {{Taxonomy}} namespace now. Northern Moonlight 06:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My count is 119,448 taxonomy templates, so the number in the category seems about right. No idea how to find the largest category.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)