Template talk:Anglicise rank

Catching invalid ranks

Because {{Anglicise rank}} is called for every level in the right-hand side table when viewing a "Template:Taxonomy/..." template, any incorrect value for |rank= causes every taxonomy template at or below the level of the one holding the incorrect rank value to have at least one use of this template with an incorrect rank value, so the previous attempt to place the faulty template in a category of taxonomy templates with incorrect ranks causes all lower level templates to appear there too.

At present I can't see a way to fix this, so I've commented out {{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Taxonomy|[[Category:Taxonomy templates using invalid rank parameters]]}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've fixed this. The template now has an extra parameter |check= which if set to true generates the category if the rank is not one of those specifically listed in the template's switch statement. It's only set to true when called from {{Taxonomy key}} at the point where the rank of the taxon itself is displayed, and not where the ranks of its parents are displayed. So when Category:Taxonomy templates using unrecognized rank parameters clears (which may take up to a week in my experience – 441 entries right now), only those templates actually containing invalid ranks should remain. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work. I just saw that Template:Taxonomy/Diplocynodon is out of the category, despite the fact that (right now, but not soon) its parent, Template:Taxonomy/Diplocynodontinae, is correctly in the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: gubgroup

If this is a typo, it should be correct to subgroup. --Obsuser (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsuser: well spotted – it is indeed a typo (I plead guilty), now corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

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

replace line

|ichnograndordo=Ichnograndorder

with

|ichnograndordo|ichnograndordo-mb<!--McKenna & Bell version-->=Ichnograndorder

Jts1882 | talk 16:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unranked?

Why is unranked → (unranked) not done as a 'special case' in the switch?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because in manual taxoboxes, "unranked_" can precede many other 'ranks', so it's different from the other more specific special cases – it's a special "special case". It's used only in manual taxoboxes to fix the order of taxa without a formal Linnaean rank, so isn't needed in the automated taxobox system, whereas the other ranks may be. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the 'unranked_' prefix is not used in automatic taxoboxen? When considered for automatic taxoboxen, just as the anglicization clade → ''Clade'' is an ordinary 'special case' because of the added italic markup, is the anglicization unranked → (unranked) also an ordinary 'special case' because of the added parentheses and the lowercase initial letter?

I'm asking this because I'm writing a bit of test code that will render a mimic of the left-hand table created by {{taxonomy key}} using data from the experimental lua data modules.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: the primary purpose of the first bit of code in the template is to find 'ranks' of the form "unranked_RANK" which are used in manual taxoboxes created by {{Taxobox}} and replace them by "(unranked)", including discarding the "_RANK" part. Plain "unranked" can be used in taxonomy templates, but will be caught by this earlier test.

You should use {{Anglicise rank}} as it is: please don't by-pass any of the configuration templates/functions listed at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/map#Configuration. As far as is practicable, the deliberate intention has been to make the configuration easily editable, i.e. separate simple templates. Using this configuration setup will ensure that the version you are working on remains consistent with the existing one, which includes consistency with manual taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really do seem to be determined to kill this experiment. Did you read what I wrote? Let me repeat it: I'm asking this because I'm writing a bit of test code that will render a mimic of the left-hand table created by {{taxonomy key}} using data from the experimental lua data modules. (emphasis added) Here is an example of my test code:

{{#invoke:Sandbox/trappist the monk/taxonomy|show_taxon_data|Agmata/?}}

Taxonomy/Agmata/?
Parent:	[Taxonomy; edit]
Rank:	– a rank must be supplied
Link:	–
Extinct:	no
Always displayed:	no
Taxonomic references:	–
Parent's taxonomic references:	–
For the suffix "/?", see Questionable assignments.
Template skeleton: data loaded from [taxonomy A3] to change these data: copy the template skeleton click [create] paste, and edit	{{Don't edit this line {{{machine code\|}}} \|same_as= \|parent= \|rank= \|link= \|extinct= \|always_display= \|refs= }}

Compare to Template:Taxonomy/Agmata/?.

Why have you chosen to chastise me for something that I have not done nor even contemplated?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: to the contrary; as I said elsewhere there's nothing sacred about storing taxonomy data in templates, which weren't intended for this purpose. Using all the existing configuration templates is a way to make sure that the system you are working on is compatible, an important consideration for its success. I had, incorrectly it seems, assumed that if you were looking at the inside of this template it was because you wanted to replicate it rather than use it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]