Now I see a lot of warnings similar to this one:

astropy/coordinates/builtin_frames/galactic.py:docstring of astropy.coordinates.builtin_frames.galactic.Galactic:1:
WARNING: duplicate object description of astropy.coordinates.builtin_frames.galactic.Galactic,
other instance in api/astropy.coordinates.Galactic, use :noindex: for one of them

@larrybradley , didn't you say you encountered the same thing in photutils? How did you fix it?

I didn't fix it. I just pinned Sphinx < 4 to stop the warnings. As I already noted in #11723 (comment), the Sphinx updates did not fix this issue (this is the same issue you reported in #11723).

I don't know if this a Sphinx bug or if we need to update sphinx-automodapi to be compatible with Sphinx 4+.

See #11723 (comment) for an explanation of the problem.

I am not sure if we have anyone with the time to dive into sphinx-automodapi. 😿

Opened astropy/sphinx-automodapi#130

Probably not the place to ask this, but do you have any reading material on why sphinx-automodapi is used instad of sphinx-autoapi or plain autodoc?

Re: why -- I don't know. We been using it for many years. My guess is we wanted things to look pretty but Sphinx didn't have pretty layout back then. Maybe @astrofrog, @eteq, or @embray remember the real reason.

sphinx-autoapi is a fairly recent project compared to sphinx-automodapi I think. The goal is probably about the same, automating the api generation without having to write the list of functions/classes with plain autodoc.

Even if we switch to sphinx-autoapi here in the core, downstream packages like photutils need to switch too. It is going to be a big project.

Sure thing, didn't want to imply a migration just yet - only working to understand the possible overlap between the two :)

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 4 months. I plan to close this in 30 days if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

Superseded by #12270