User talk:JeffDoozan/lists/template params/errors

Templates needing "i" added for italicization

There are a few taxonomic reference templates that need italicization functionality added:

• {{R:AlgaeBasetax}} - noi
• {{R:AmphibiaWebsp}} - always italics
• {{R:Animal Diversity Web}} - noi
• {{R:AviBase}} - noi
• {{R:Brassibase}} - i
• {{R:BugGuide}} - i
• {{R:EPPO}} - noi
• {{R:Fishbase}} - noi
• {{R:FNA}} - i
• {{R:Fossilworks}} - i
• {{R:GRIN species}} - always italics
• {{R:Gymnosperms}} - noi
• {{R:ION}} - noi
• {{R:IONq}} - noi
• {{R:IUCN}} - noi
• {{R:LPSN}} - always italics
• {{R:PaleoDB}} - i

I don't know about other errors that may also lurk in usage of these templates. DCDuring (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Some of these templates always italicize ({{R:Animal Diversity Web}}), some never italacize ({{R:ION}}), and others always italacize unless |noi= is used ({{R:AviBase}}, only used on goldcrest). If these are italacized much more often that they're not italacized, should they just default to using italics unless |noi=1 instead of requiring |i= everywhere? Or, even easier, just let them all be italacized all of the time and remove all of the existing |i= and |noi= params? JeffDoozan (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into and thinking about this and forcing me to clarify. I was thinking mostly of consistency, but that probably should not be the sole determinant. The ones that are not or little used should be used more often.

I've indicated the best choice for each. I'm sure about the ones that are marked "i" and "always italics". For the others, consistency and existing practice (-my habits or finger memory) favor "i". I doubt that my practice has been very consistent and expect less from others. Maybe @User:Chuck Entz has thoughts, as he is probably one of the few besides me who ever use these. He would be definitive on {{tl:R:BugGuide}}. DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Taxon reference template normalization

Templates that only italicize with |i= (usually i=)

1. use bot to add noi=1 to all uses that don't have i=
2. edit template to always italicize unless noi=
3. use bot to remove i=

• {{R:ITIS}} - i= used on 1,972 of 2,811 pages
• {{R:COL}} - i= used on 437 of 527 pages
• {{R:EOL}} - i= used on 2234 of 3223 pages
• {{R:NCBI}} - i= used on 2436 of 3471 pages
• {{R:GRIN}} - i= used on 920 of 975 pages
• {{R:TPL}} - i= used on 1420 of 1464 pages
• {{R:Animal Diversity Web}} - i= used on 192 of 208 pages

Templates that only italicize with |i=

Advice wanted: These are the only templates that support i= but don't include i= on most calls, what should we do?

• {{R:Fossilworks}} - i= used on 452 of 948 pages
• {{R:PaleoDB}} - i= used on 50 of 1032 pages

Templates that always italicize

1. add support for noi=

• {{R:Brassibase}} - always i, 90
• {{R:LPSN}} - always i, 142
• {{R:USDA Plants}} - always i, 1924

Templates that never italicize

1. modify the template to italacize unless |noi=

   Note: all existing uses will become italacized

• {{R:AlgaeBasetax}} - never i, 127
• {{R:AmphibiaWebsp}} - never i, 3
• {{R:BugGuide}} - never i, 83
• {{R:EPPO}} - never i, 4
• {{R:FNA}} - never i, 5
• {{R:GRIN species}} - never i, 5
• {{R:Gymnosperms}} - never i, 49
• {{R:ION}} - never i, 28
• {{R:IONq}} - never i, 31
• {{R:IUCN}} - never i, 1

Templates that italicize unless |noi=

no changes needed

• {{R:AviBase}}
• {{R:Fishbase}}

@DCDuring For simplicity, I think we should pick one system and apply it to all of the taxon reference templates (let me know if there are more that aren't on the above list). Looking at the current use of the templates, most of the existing calls include |i= so the links are already italicized most of the time. Since they're usually italicized, I propose that we make them italacize by default unless |noi= is specified and use the bot to add/remove the noi/i as needed. What do you think? The only sticking point I see to this is JeffDoozan/lists/template params/errors at Paleobiology Database, which is overwhelmingly not-italacized, even though calls to JeffDoozan/lists/template params/errors at Paleobiology Database, which is a redirect to JeffDoozan/lists/template params/errors at Paleobiology Database, are italacized a little more than half of the time. JeffDoozan (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the census data. What you've done has made me think harder (better?) about the 'problem'.

If consistency is good and we would like to reduce keystrokes going forward, then what matters is not so much current reference template usage as future usage. Now, genus, species, and other italicized taxon entries outnumber non-italicized taxon entries about 3 to 1. Moreover, I believe that there is a 'bias' toward non-italicized taxon entries at present because higher taxa are more frequently linked to because of the Hypernyms templates, so new taxon entries should have a higher percentage of italics. Even though these taxon reference templates sometimes link to higher taxa, which are sometimes not italicized, it is likely that we will always have more need for them to be italicized than not. AND, italicized taxa are more likely to be incomplete, ie, missing reference templates, which further skews the current census of italics away from likely future need for italics.

IOW, let's make italics the default, with noi an option for all the taxon templates, whether or not that reflects current usage. Consistency is advantageous. There will be many existing entries for higher taxa that will show italics, but shouldn't. But there are systematic ways to identify them and correct them manually or, probably, to do so automagically. If we (ie, you) used automagic methods for the easy cases, I'd handle the cases that weren't covered. And the 'cost' to users of improper italicization in the reference templates during a transition period is not severe. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring:  Done All of the templates in Category:Taxonomic_reference_templates that previously used |i=1 to italicize now italicize by default and use |noi=1 to disable italicization, so no more typing |i=1 manually on every template - in fact, the templates will now warn you if you apply the wrong parameter. I've added/removed the necessary params with the bot and updated the documentation on each of the templates accordingly. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure there will be plenty of cases that display incorrectly, because of previous parameter errors and simple neglect, usually failure to put in any parameters in several templates for the same entry or definition. I'll search for cases that might be numerous but 'easily' identifiable by regex; if I get any that are particularly abundant, I'll seek your assistance.

I've been noticing a few unnamed parameters that are in the nature of comments on specific issues with the application of the templates in particular cases. Can we have an-all-taxonomic template (or wiki-wide, even better) allowance for a named parameter "comment". Generally they are best not visible to users, though it might be desirable to allow both displayed and undisplayed comments.

I've done a bit of work on some of the problems that are on your many lists. Mostly on Translingual, but also English and a few obvious cases in other languages.

Thanks again for what you are doing. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

{{vern}} etc.

I would love to have the complete list of entries with errors in {{vern}}, sorted by type of error, if that is easy to do. I would be happy to do the less-frequent ones manually.

I have stricken through taxon-related templates where I have corrected all errors (ie, those with 10 or fewer, but more than one). DCDuring (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Most of the vern errors were |pedia=1, which is the default, so I removed that with the bot earlier today. I adjusted the report to include up to 20 bad entries, so the remaining vern errors now all fit on the page. JeffDoozan 19:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think somebody had in mind some functionality to prevent the link from leading to the WP failed-search page. Of course, usually the easy thing is to just add a WP redirect, which I usually do, if it is straightforward. And failed-search often provides useful candidate pages for any desired info. DCDuring (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I had corrected 8 or 10 previously displayed and have now corrected the 10 added. The parameter 'dis' was intended to extend use of vern to diseases. I'm not sure that counts as an error, rather than an abandoned attempt to collect data. DCDuring (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Thank you. The term "error" is used here in a very broad sense: if an editor gives data to a template and the template does nothing with that data, it's listed here as an error without any intention of placing blame on the editor or the template. In the case of |dis=: should that functionality that should be added to the template, should the param be removed from template calls, should it be preserved but flagged in some way as "collected but unused data"? I have no idea, and I suspect the answer for {{vern}} is different than the answer of other templates. I hope that through this effort the community can find some easy spots to improve templates to match user expectations, like what you listed above with |i= and come to some consensus on what should be done with the remaining data. In the future, I'd love to have support for generating a warning that editors can see when previewing the page so that they, who are in the best position to know their intentions, can make the decision themselves. JeffDoozan (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I took 'error' as you meant it. I really appreciate this kind of analysis. I'll have to look to see whether the template implementation of italics that I had in other template has been retained or is superseded by some module implementation. I now think 'dis' does not belong in {{vern}}: the disease names that interested me are those that are caused by specific organisms and can rarely be called 'vernacular'.

I hope you can get folks to address the various possible/likely problems you have identified. It's easy for me to identify things I'm the best person to address. You could sort many of these by language and put a link/reminder on the corresponding About pages. DCDuring (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:taxlink 'noshow='

There are some 6,700 pages that have {{taxlink}} and have 'noshow=1'. 'Noshow' has not been used for quite some time (several years) and does not appear in the template's code. I was surprised that it did not come up in your run. Perhaps you only went after templates that used code in module space?

In any event, I would be obliged if you could remove all instances of 'noshow' appearing as a parameter in {{taxlink}}. I have been removing instances in the course of other corrections to taxonomic and other entries, but it may be years before I find them all. DCDuring (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The bot's busy removing |noshow=1 from {{taxlink}}, which wasn't included in the list because it called Module:italics. Modules invoked by templates can access all of the parameters passed to the template, so it's impossible to know if a param is "ununused" without manually checking verifying that the module doesn't use it. It looks like Module:italics does not make use of any parameters, so I added it to the list of allowed invocations and {{taxlink}} is now included in on the page (I configured it to ignore noshow, since the bot is fixing that and not to truncate taxlink, so you can see all of the errors). The bot can fix parameter typos easily so if you see multiple typos it might be faster to add them here instead of fixing them manually. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)