Template talk:Automatic taxobox

Template:Automatic taxobox is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Automatic taxobox template.

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, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 41.5 days

This talkpage has been used for general discussion of issues with the automated taxobox system as a whole – taxobox templates like {{Speciesbox}} or this one, taxonomy templates like Template:Taxonomy/Aves, or the design and coding of the system. It is suggested that these should now be discussed at WT:Automated taxobox system, and this page reserved for specific problems with this template.

How to deal with existing articles that are of synonyms?

I was just about to convert Dysgraphhadena to use {{automatic taxobox}} instead of {{taxobox}}, but while investigating I discovered that Dysgraphhadena is apparently a junior synonym of Rhiza. This was unmentioned on both pages. So, I added the synonym to Rhiza's page, but I'm not sure what is supposed to be done with Dysgraphhadena's. Should it be replaced with a redirect to Rhiza? Should it just be deleted entirely? Should it be largely left as is but with text added mentioning that it's a synonym? If it's left in place (and not made into a redirect), should anything special be done to its taxobox? Or something else entirely? - Rwv37 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwv37: in this case I would simply make it into a redirect; there's no useful information in the article that needs to be merged into Rhiza. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did that, and in the process discovered there's actually a specific rcat template intended for this: {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Thank you! - Rwv37 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwv37: indeed. Where there is any substantial history of editing the redirected article, you can also add {{R with history}}, but it's not necessary in this case in my view. There is a need for more guidance on dealing with articles found to be at synonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proper handling of stem taxa

I was trying to clean up some stem-Ctenophora inconsistencies and discovered that I apparently don't know how to handle stem groups. The current tree is something like:

Template:Taxonomy/Animalia
- Template:Taxonomy/Ctenophora/stem-group (rank: stem group; parent: Animalia)
  - Template:Taxonomy/Siphusauctidae (rank familia; parent: Ctenophora/stem-group)
    - Template:Taxonomy/Siphusauctum (rank: genus; parent: Siphusauctidae)
- Template:Taxonomy/Ctenophora (rank: phylum; parent: Animalia)
  - Template:Taxonomy/Dinomischidae (rank: stem group; parent: Ctenophora)
    - Template:Taxonomy/Dinomischus (rank: genus; parent: Dinomischidae)
    - Template:Taxonomy/Xianguangia (rank: genus; parent: Dinomischidae)

The way Siphusauctidae is handled is what I was expecting: There is a Ctenophora/stem-group taxon with rank "stem group" that is used as the parent, and Ctenophora/stem-group has the same parent as Ctenophora. This indicates that Siphusauctidae is a group along the Ctenophora stem.

But what is going on with Dinomischidae? I did not think that a group that did not have /stem-group on the end should be given rank "stem group"? The way this appears on the Dinomischus page makes it look to me like Dinomischus is in the stem group of Dinomischidae, the family of which it is the type genus. Surely this is not correct?

I was going to re-parent Dinomischidae to Ctenophora/stem-group and change its rank to familia, but I wanted to check and see if I'm understanding this correctly. Perhaps it should be added to the documentation? Or is there somewhere else I should be looking?

Ixat totep (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around a bit more, I'm pretty sure that the way of handling I think is correct is correct, so I'm just going to make that change and see if anyone objects. Which makes this question more about whether this should be documented. I'm hesitant to do that myself as this is a much-used template and I am not at all confident of my understanding of its details.

Ixat totep (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixat totep:, the Dinomischidae template was edited from how it was initially set up on 30 September. It originally had rank as familia and parent as Ctenophora/stem-group. I'd guess the person who edited it just didn't know what they were doing. Plantdrew (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Plantdrew yeah I noticed that when I went to change it- don't know why I didn't think to look earlier. Thanks for confirming!

Ixat totep (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find that arangement strange. Surely stem group Ctenophores should be part of Ctenophora or if the latter is a crown group both should belong to a total group. — Jts1882 | talk 11:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ctenophora seems to be treated as a total group, at least in our article, so the parent at Template:Taxonomy/Ctenophora/stem-group should surely be Ctenophora, not jump to Animalia. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stem group template needed? There aren't a large number of taxa, so why not just put the two families under Ctenophora? The articles on Fasciculus, Maotianoascus, and Scleroctenophora refer to them as stem-group Ctenophora, but they aren't place under the stem group template. There's also a Template:Taxonomy/Ctenophora/?, although that doesn't seem to be used. — Jts1882 | talk 11:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882, @Peter coxhead— This isn't specifically about Ctenophora. Take a look at Template:Taxonomy/Entoprocta/stem-group, Template:Taxonomy/Bilateria/stem-group, Template:Taxonomy/Bilateria/stem-group, Template:Taxonomy/Ambulacraria/stem-group, Template:Taxonomy/Arthropoda/stem-group... this is how stem groups work, and Ctenophera should not be changed without considering the broad impact.

The way to think about it is kind-of like this:

Animalia
- Ctenophera (total group) [no Template:Taxobox/Ctenophora/... for this]
  - Ctenophera/stem-group
  - Ctenophera (total group) [just uses the regular Template:Taxobox/Ctenophera]

The difference being that with "/stem-group" (given the "rank" of "stem group"), we know that the groups are along the stem in some order rather than implied to be direct sister-groups.

But I think what you're really objecting to is the lack of an entry for the total group, which is just implied by having both a crown group and a stem group.

I suspect this is beause stem groups were added to the system much later, and no one wanted to go and create a whole bunch of crown and total groups when for many taxa there's no need for a separate stem group. Plus for wholly extinct taxa the concept isn't really relevant — you can't have a stem group when there's no surviving crown group. Linnaean taxonomy and cladistics have an uneasy relationship, unfortunately.

The articles on Fasciculus, Maotianoascus, and Scleroctenophora refer to them as stem-group Ctenophora, but they aren't place under the stem group template.

@Jts1882 sounds like an opportunity to fix something! Either the description or taxonomy is less correct than it could be. Ixat totep (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]