Template talk:Category described in year

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tree of Life This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic Years This template is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears Categories This template is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories 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.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all sub-template talk pages of {{Category described in year}} and Module:Category described in year redirect here.

@Tom.Reding: at Module:Category described in year the documentation says that if yearmin isn't specified it defaults to 1758. So why does Category:Crustaceans described in 1758 show earlier years? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, I've been meaning to phase that out (lower priority though). The only reason it was there was for the old nav template {{Category in year}}, but that was replaced with {{Navseasoncats}}, which doesn't use/need a |yearmin= or equivalent, but that can be added as a feature, if desired. Personally, I like the consistent size of the nav box as you approach both extremes, i.e. Category:Crustaceans described in 1758 & Category:Crustaceans described in 2018, since it maintains the pattern of what year will show up under your mouse while navigating, and keeps the same size box.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The counter argument is that there cannot be any years before 1753/1758 depending on the group, but the presence of these years, even greyed out, suggests that there could be. I understand the point about keeping the constant size of the nav box, but this could be kept even if the early years are fixed not to display. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, I've mocked up a few examples here. Let me know which one you think is most appropriate, or if anything better comes to mind.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "whitespace + dots" approach. I've suggested there another way of achieving the effect, using visibility:hidden. This ensures that the width is constant, regardless of the user's font settings, which using   may not. It may also be easier to implement: just surround any year less than the mininum by <span style="visibility:hidden"> .. </span>. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.Reding great, thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template generates a Multiline table in list lint error for each year that the Wikipedia commons category exists, viz: 1753, 1831, 1877, 1891. Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add extra categories for example Category:Ants described in 1758 and it seems to add it to both Category:Animals described in 1758 and Category:Insects described in 1758. Is there any way to only place it in the insect category, like with the beetles, butterflies and moths? Elspooky (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elspooky: why? Ants were CfD'd here in 2018, and I don't see why they shouldn't be again. The category structure & population is even worse than it was pre-CfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 9#Category:Ants described in 1758.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  05:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this template putting Category:Protists described in 1753 ( 11 ) into Category:Animals described in 1753 ( 0 )? Protists are not animals by definition. awkwafaba (📥) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's doing it to all protists. c.f. Category:Protists described in 1953 ( 4 ) awkwafaba (📥) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Tom.Reding:. awkwafaba (📥) 18:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template output should always be checked to make sure it produces the desired result.

Per Module:Category described in year/conf (ultimately used by {{Category described in year}}, which was added to Protists described in 1753, Protists described in 1953, and probably other categories, by Snoteleks), the default category tree is "year -> Animals:year -> Animals:century" (I'll add this to the template /doc for more clarity/visibility). There are non-animal trees available, but none that include protists, so a new tree needs to be made in Module:Category described in year/conf. I can do that soon if no one else wants to have a go at it, but I think it's important for editors creating & maintaining categories in this area to become familiar with the template/module.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba, Snoteleks, and Leonid Dobrov:  Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  06:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider making the following change: "Any category group (e.g. Amphibians/Birds/etc.) NOT explicitly outlined here in conf{} will follow the 'Default' tree for that group when the template is used on that cateogry." becomes: "Any category group (e.g. Amphibians/Birds/etc.) NOT explicitly outlined here in conf{} will follow the 'Default' tree for that group when the template is used on that category." ShoneBrooks (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, along with some code copy-edits that were waiting in the main module's sandbox.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the tree structure below Category:Animals by taxon and year of formal description has drifted a bit out of sync with what's in the module. It appears that various editors have resurrected some parts of the hierarchy that were CfDd elsewhere in 2018: bees, bugs, cockroaches, damselflies, flies, grasshoppers, sawflies, and wasps; corals; starfish(es). There have also been some higher categories created that I don't believe existed at the time of the 2018 CfDs, Category:Arachnids by year of formal description, Category:Cnidarians by year of formal description, and Category:Echinoderms by year of formal description. It looks like there's been a fair bit of work done to try to fill the echinoderm year categories down through much of the 19th century. Arachnids are less well-developed, and Cnidarians are just a container for the coral category.

While I'm not sure these categories are super useful, I have been working on tidying them up, and would be willing to diffuse down entries from the "Animals described in year" categories to a reasonable extent. My tentative proposal would be to CfD the first list of categories (bees through starfish) and merge their contents to the parent categories. However, I would keep arachnids, cnidarians, and echinoderms at the first level below animals. So far from my observations of the "Animals described in year" categories I think diffusing into those groups would create reasonably-sized "in year" categories for the most part. We could probably fill a hierarchy for annelids and flatworms pretty well from existing articles, but I don't feel a burning need to start that unless someone really wants them.

The main change required for the config would be to create an Arachnids tree with Spiders as a group under them; we have quite a few scorpions, mites, and harvestmen, but again, I don't feel a pressing need to subcategorize arachnids. Thoughts? Choess (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]